Wisconsin's Natural Resources Board has approved new contamination standards for Perfluorinated and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFAS), a family of chemicals pervasive in the state's waters.

The board approved a drinking-water standard of 70 parts per trillion for two of the most common PFAS chemicals Wednesday, a significantly higher cap than the 20 parts per trillion initially recommended by the Department of Natural Resources.

Lee Donahue, a supervisor for the Town of Campbell, told the board extensive PFAS contamination has had life-changing effects on residents of her western Wisconsin town.

"It's like a ticking time bomb, you know," Donahue stated. "It's in your body, you can't get it out, you seek an alternative safe drinking-water source, and you pray for enforceable water standards."

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the chemicals have been linked to a number of adverse health effects, but research into the exact health outcomes of PFAS exposure is ongoing. Some business lobbying groups opposed the more stringent DNR guidelines for the chemicals, arguing they did not adequately take into account the financial impacts such rules would have for businesses and manufacturers.

The Department of Natural Resources' initial 20-parts-per-trillion proposal was rejected as board members believed the cost to enforce it, an estimated $5.6 million for the first year alone, would be too high.

Scott Manley, executive vice president of government relations for Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, also argued the DNR lacks the specific authority to regulate PFAS.

"It's clear that DNR staff believe they have broad authority to regulate PFAS however they deem fit," Manley contended. "But the agency has a long history of misinterpreting its own authority, including its authority to regulate PFAS substances."

PFAS, also known as "forever chemicals," will essentially never break down under normal environmental conditions. They're a common material found in everything from firefighting foam to nonstick cookware. The new PFAS standards, which fall in line with federal recommendations established under the Obama EPA, still need legislative approval.

The futures of tourism, wildlife and ranching in Mono County are now at the mercy of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - according to environmental groups - now that a court has upheld the agency's authority to cut irrigation water.

For about 100 years, the agency has leased its land and provided water for ranchers to graze cattle in Long Valley and Little Round Valley. But Wendy Schneider, executive director of the nonprofit Friends of the Inyo, said the damage from allowing less water to irrigate these valleys would be widespread.

"We are talking about taking away the scenic value and the recreational value, of a large portion of the county," said Schneider. "Also, this area is really important for the survival of the bi-state sage grouse population."

Schneider also said she worries about the survival of trout and the potential for increased dust storms and fire danger.

The DWP did not immediately respond to a request for comment - but has argued in court that it has the right to modify its leases and that the historic drought has forced its hand, since its primary mission is to serve millions of families in the Southland.

The current watering season will continue through September. The DWP hasn't said how much it plans to cut water deliveries to the alpine meadows near Mammoth Lakes.

Stacey Simon, legal counsel for Mono County, said the court did provide a backstop to prevent the city from cutting off the water entirely.

"The court is saying, 'Look, we can't direct this public agency as to how to exercise its discretion,'" said Simon. "'But we do say that, if it goes so far as to dry out these lands completely, that's a new project, environmental review is required.'"

The DWP first notified leaseholders about its intention to cut back on water in 2018. A trial court initially sided with Mono County and the Sierra Club, but the appeals court partially reversed that decision on Thursday.

According to Simon, if the agency turns off the flow altogether, stakeholders would consider litigation under the California Environmental Quality Act.

June is National Rivers Month, and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (DEP) is getting ready to nominate Lake Tahoe and likely some of the state's mountain streams for special protection.

The state has been working for two years to come up with a list of Extraordinary Ecological, Aesthetic, or Recreational Waters, as required by the Clean Water Act.

Pam Harrington, field coordinator for Trout Unlimited, said the Silver State is playing a bit of catch-up.

"Nevada has lagged far behind in having special protections for the highest quality waters," Harrington observed. "Nearly every other state in the United States has a policy in place for this. So we've been behind."

Harrington said Tahoe would be a no-brainer, but she would like to see protections for some streams in the Ruby Mountains and for the Mahogany and Alder streams feeding into Summit Lake; important habitat for native Lahontan trout. The Nevada Conservation League is pressing the state to streamline the nomination process to make it easier for laypeople to participate.

Harrington added the changes would preserve the status quo and protect against future degradation.

"An ecological and aesthetic or recreational water in the state of Nevada would be afforded the highest level of protection," Harrington explained. "To disallow new pollution sources to be introduced into those waters."

The DEP has held multiple webinars with government, tribal, environmental and industry stakeholders. The state environmental commission gets the final say on the policy and is expected to take up the matter this fall.

Two decades of extreme drought have put a squeeze on Arizona's water supply, but a once-obscure state agency could soon be at the forefront of keeping the taps flowing.

The Arizona Water Bank, created in 1999, keeps track of any surplus water from the state's annual allotment from the Colorado River. But the river water has reached critical levels this year, triggering mandatory restrictions.

Virginia O'Connell, director of the Arizona Water Banking Authority, said the agency, for the first time, could be deciding how to get the "banked" water to where it's needed, while making sure the supplies last.

"So, this is a first for us," she said. "We'll be distributing credits for that purpose, or that entitlements have even been shorted. We're all working together to make sure that we're prepared, and we're ready to go when there is a shortage."

Arizona normally receives 2.8 million acre-feet of water per year from the Colorado River, but the restrictions will cut the state's allotment by 18%. O'Connell said the Water Bank currently manages about 3.75 million acre-feet of water credits.

She said most of the banked water is kept in storage by a group of utilities and other entities that have credits in the bank's watery "vault."

"Basically, it's an accounting system to keep track of how much water is stored, because that actually gives you ownership of that water," she said, "and then you can recover those credits in the future when you need that water."

In the 1990s, O'Connell said, state officials became concerned that unused portions of Arizona's water allotment could be claimed by other states. So, they set up the Water Bank to preserve any surplus for use during droughts and other shortages.

"Their task was to store all of the unused portion of Colorado River water in Arizona, and that water would be made available in the future when there are times of shortage," she said. "And that's kind of where we are now."

Under the current agreement, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation will annually assess the available water supply. O'Connell said the Water Bank will use that data to determine how much water can be released and who will get it.