The NSW Government has formally responded to the Select Committee inquiry into PFAS contamination in the state’s waterways and drinking supplies, offering support for the majority of the committee’s findings.

In Short

• The NSW Government has formally supported 25 out of 32 recommendations from the PFAS inquiry, focusing on long-term "forever chemical" management.

• Testing across 83 regional utilities confirms that all supplies, including those in Hay and Balranald, currently meet updated Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.

• The Government "noted" rather than supported certain recommendations involving Defence sites, citing Federal responsibility for RAAF bases and Commonwealth land.

Of the 32 recommendations handed down by the inquiry, the Government has supported—or supported in principle—25. The response comes at a time of heightened awareness regarding "forever chemicals" (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) and their long-term impact on regional environments and public health.

For communities across the Hay, Balranald, and Ivanhoe districts, where water quality is central to both domestic life and the agricultural industry, the Government’s commitment to risk-based monitoring remains a key focus.

Testing conducted earlier in 2024 across 83 regional water utilities initially showed that 80 supplies met the draft guidelines. While the Government confirmed it has been working with the three utilities that exceeded those levels, it noted that those supplies currently meet the updated Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.

A spokesperson for the NSW Government stated that management of the contaminant would remain a priority for regional areas.

“In regional NSW, risk-based monitoring is taking place to ensure the NSW Government and local water utilities can respond promptly to ensure continued compliance with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines,” the Government stated.

“We understand the community’s concerns about PFAS, particularly in our state’s waterways; our management of PFAS is informed by the best available science and evidence. That is why we supported the NSW Chief Health Officer convening the NSW Health Expert Advisory Panel on PFAS to review the latest evidence and provide independent advice.”

PFAS, a group of manufactured chemicals used in firefighting foams and industrial products, has become a "legacy contaminant" that persists in the environment. The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has already assessed more than 1,100 legacy sites across the state.

While many of the recommendations were accepted, some were not supported or simply "noted." The Government cited jurisdictional boundaries as a primary reason, particularly regarding matters of Defence, which remain the responsibility of the Australian Government—a significant factor for regional areas near RAAF bases or federal land.

“For those recommendations not supported or noted, it is for reasons of: jurisdictional responsibility (matters of Defence are a matter for the Australian Government), existing expert advice on PFAS as a contaminant (such as on blood testing and site testing), and existing systems that already address the inquiry’s concerns,” the response noted.

The Government also emphasized that work on the issue is far from over.

“Our work dealing with this legacy contaminant is ongoing in NSW: more than 1100 legacy sites have been assessed by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA), and the NSW PFAS Expert Panel and the PFAS Technical Advisory Group continue to provide cross-government assessment and advice.”

“Regular testing is now in place to ensure the NSW Government and local water utilities can respond promptly to ensure continued compliance with the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. We understand the community’s concerns about PFAS, particularly in our state’s waterways; our management of PFAS is informed by the best available science and evidence.”

The Government said they have pledged to maintain a level of transparency.

“We remain committed to ensuring transparency and community awareness and working alongside the Australian Government where jurisdictional responsibility requires it. We thank the committee for their work, and community members for taking the time to share their views and expertise throughout the inquiry.”

Read the reports HERE