PFAS turned up at 91% of 86 tested NJ waterway sites in 2022–2024 data, including Raritan sites above the Bridgewater drinking water intake. What residents can do.
PFAS were detected at 91% of 86 New Jersey waterway locations with available test data, according to a report released Oct. 14 by Environment New Jersey Research & Policy Center and Frontier Group. The samples were collected between 2022 and 2024. In South Jersey, detections included the Cooper River in Cherry Hill and Big Timber Creek in Glendora, The Sun Newspapers reported.
The report also found PFAS at every Raritan River watershed site with sampling data, all upstream of the drinking water intake in Bridgewater, a major source for central New Jersey. For residents who rely on that supply, the question is no longer whether PFAS is in the watershed but how much is reaching the tap.
PFAS Found at 91% of Tested Sites
The report compiles U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data from the national Water Quality Portal for 86 New Jersey locations. PFAS were detected at 91% of them, and as many as 20 different PFAS compounds appeared at one or more sites. In the Raritan River watershed, PFAS turned up at every monitoring location with data, including the North Branch of the Raritan near Raritan, the Millstone River at Blackwells Mills and the Lamington River at Burnt Mills, all above the Bridgewater intake.
PFAS, often called "forever chemicals," do not break down in the environment and accumulate in the human body over time. The CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has linked PFAS exposure to thyroid disease, immune system effects, and increased cancer risk.
New Jersey has some of the strictest state-level PFAS standards in the country, but those limits apply to finished drinking water, not raw source water. Whether utilities can fully remove PFAS before it reaches the tap depends on their treatment technology.
Who Draws Drinking Water From These Sources
New Jersey American Water's Raritan-Millstone Water Treatment Plant in Bridgewater and its Canal Road plant in Somerset together serve customers in seven counties: Essex, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Morris, Somerset and Union. PFAS detected upstream of the Bridgewater intake means the river water at that intake carries PFAS before treatment. The state Department of Environmental Protection says conventional treatment methods are not designed to remove PFAS, so removal depends on additional treatment such as activated carbon or reverse osmosis.
The report lists the Cooper River in Cherry Hill and Big Timber Creek in Glendora as detection sites; it does not identify them as drinking water sources. Residents anywhere in the state who want to know what is in their finished tap water can check their utility's annual water quality report.
What the Report's Authors Want From the State
The groups behind the report are calling for a phase-out of PFAS, a ban on industrial facilities discharging PFAS into rivers or sending them to sewage treatment plants, and an end to spreading PFAS-laden sewage sludge on farmland. Advocates also urged the state to move forward on a pending Department of Environmental Protection rule proposal to filter PFAS out of wastewater treatment plant discharges.
Mara Tippett, executive director of the Raritan Headwaters Association, said New Jersey still lacks surface water quality standards for PFAS. Such standards, she said, would help identify contamination and hold polluters accountable.
Treatment Varies Widely Across Utilities
The presence of PFAS in raw source water does not mean the same concentrations reach household taps. Treatment plants with granular activated carbon or membrane filtration can reduce PFAS levels significantly. However, not all utilities have upgraded their systems, and smaller systems often lack the capital for advanced treatment.
A peer-reviewed Rutgers University study published in April 2026 found a 55% decline in PFAS levels across New Jersey's public water systems after the state set enforceable limits, driven largely by utilities that installed treatment. For residents whose utilities have not upgraded, source water contamination translates more directly into tap water exposure.
Are you affected? What to do
If you're in Camden County or central New Jersey:
- Contact your utility directly and ask whether their treatment system is certified to reduce PFAS to state limits.
- Consider a reverse osmosis or activated carbon filter certified to NSF/ANSI 53 or 58 for PFAS reduction if your utility draws from a contaminated source.
Check your own water:
- City water: Look up your utility's annual water quality report with the EPA's report search. EWG's Tap Water Database also shows results by ZIP code; its health guidelines are stricter than the legal limits.
- Private well: No one tests it for you. See the EPA's private well guidance.
For everyone:
- Check whether your utility's annual water quality report lists PFAS results.
Filters That Address PFAS at the Tap
PFAS contamination in source water can reach household taps when utilities lack advanced treatment. For homes where that is a concern, point-of-use filtration provides a final barrier. The key is selecting a system certified to reduce PFAS, not one that simply claims to improve taste or remove chlorine.
Reverse osmosis systems certified to NSF/ANSI 58 with a specific PFAS reduction claim are the most effective option for home use. These systems force water through a membrane that blocks PFAS compounds, including the short-chain varieties that standard carbon filters may miss. Activated carbon block filters certified to NSF/ANSI 53 for PFAS can also reduce contamination, though removal rates vary by product.
WWR's review of reverse osmosis systems for home use covers under-sink and countertop options that meet this standard. For renters or those who prefer a portable solution, our countertop RO guide includes systems that require no permanent installation.
Correction (Oct. 19, 2026): An earlier version of this article said the Cooper River and Big Timber Creek supply public drinking water, described Environment New Jersey as having tested the sites itself, and misstated the date and findings of the Rutgers study. It has been updated.
Share this post!
