PFAS and the Camas Water System

Share PFAS and the Camas Water System on Facebook Share PFAS and the Camas Water System on Twitter Share PFAS and the Camas Water System on Linkedin Email PFAS and the Camas Water System link

**Updated 9/29/25** Well 13 has been turned off for the season. We will notify water customers when it is turned on again to meet higher usage during the summer months.

**Updated 10/1/25** NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR PFAS IN WELL 13 Read Notice Here

**UPDATED 7/24/25** Notice of Violation for PFAS in Well 13 Read the full letter here.

**UPDATED 4/22/25**

The City is planning a new project in order to help mitigate PFAS from Well 13.The City’s new PFAS filtration construction project is anticipated to start in mid to late August of this year and run for 18 months ending in early 2027. A contractor is expected to be selected by July for the project.

The city has chosen ion exchange (IX) media to treat the water from Well 13. IX media was chosen over other medias due to its specific ability to treat the PFAS family of chemicals, since the city’s water is clear of other contaminants. We'll provide more updates as they become available.

**Updated 7/12/24**

Thank you to everyone who was able to attend the joint open house hosted by City of Camas, in conjunction with the Washington State Department of Ecology, Clark County Public Health and the Washington State Department of Health, July 9, 2024, at Lacamas Lake Lodge. For those that were unable to attend, please view the Open House Information Boards below, or through the Documents section to the right. For additional information visit: https://doh.wa.gov/community-and-environment/contaminants/pfas


We have also completed the 2023 Consumer Confidence Report, which you can find here: https://www.cityofcamas.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/9486/2023ccr.pdf

To view previous updates: https://engagecamas.com/21559/widgets/70670/documents/57246

*Please note, the City tests for numerous Perfluorinated Compounds that fall under PFAS, we will only show results that are detectable. Table updated 9/29/25








City Well No.
DOH Source No.Testing Date
PFAS Measured
Result
State Action Level (SAL)
Result
Well 5

063/22/2022(PFOS) PFoctane Sulfonic acid 6.9ng/L15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.6ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane Sulfonic acid
3.7ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
8/5/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
7.3ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
5.4ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
3.5ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBA) PFbutanoic acid
2.2ng/L
None
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
11/9/2022(PFBA) PFbutanoic acid
6.9ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
5.3ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
3.9ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFPeA) PFpentanoic acid
2.7ng/L
None
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFHxA) PFhexanoic acid
2.3ng/L
None
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBA) PFbutanoic acid
2.6ng/L
None
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
4/4/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
6.2ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
3.1ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
7/11/24(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid

4.8ng/L
10ng/LPFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)

(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid

7.2ng/L

15ng/LPFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)

(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.8ng/L
345ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFHxA) PFhexanoic acid
3.8ng/L
None
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
Well 13
168/5/2022(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
25ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: At or Exceeding State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.9ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.1ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
3/23/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.8ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
6/8/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
8.84ng/L
15ng/l
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
6/13/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
9.76ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.23ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
6/22/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
10.5ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.13ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
7/13/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
15.8ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: At or Exceeding State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
4.27ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.1ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
12/5/2022(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
17ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: At or Exceeding State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.3
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/31/2023(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
3.8 ng/L

345ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
4.4ng/L

10ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid

12ng/L15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
12/5/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
7ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.8 ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.6 ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
4/4/24(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.5ng/l15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
7/11/24(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
8.4ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
6/17/25(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
5.8 ng/L

10ng/L


PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)

345ng/L
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid

2.2 ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)

(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
32.6 ng/L15ng/L

PFAS Detected: At or Exceeding State Action Level (SAL)
7/2/25
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid

46.9 ng/L

15ng/L



PFAS Detected: At or Exceeding State Action Level (SAL)

9/15/25(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid


27.7 ng/L


15ng/L


PFAS Detected: At or Exceeding State Action Level (SAL)

(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid

4.6 ng/L


10ng/L



PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)

(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid

2.2 ng/L


345ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)


Well 14
(In general use)
177/13/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.18ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.19ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.35ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
"Well Field East"
(In general use - Sampling location is after blending of Wells 6 and 14)
183/22/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.3ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
11/9/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.6ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.4ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid

2.4ng/L

345ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
9/27/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
5.9ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.8ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.0ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
9/24/24(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.2ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
"Oak Park Well Field"
(In general use - Sampling Location is after blending of Wells 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12)
193/22/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.1ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
11/9/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.2ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.2ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
4/4/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.2ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
7/13/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.69ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.28ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
9/27/23(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.4ng/L
15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
1.0ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
5711 SE Strong Road (Crown Road Booster Station)
System Test8/23/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
2.69ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
27200 Robinson Road
System Test
9/11/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.0ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
Deer Haven
System Test

9/11/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
13.7ng/L
15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
9/11/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.9ng/L
10ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
Crown Park
System Test

9/11/2023

(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid

11.5ng/L


15ng/L


PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
9/11/2023

(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid

3.11ng/L
10ng/L


PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
NE Sitka Dr
System Test


9/11/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid

2.8ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
NW Woodburn Drive
System Test



10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
9.88ng/L
15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/5/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid

2.03ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
1620 SE 8th Ave
System Test
10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
14.4ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/5/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.69ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
2822 NW 18th Ave
System Test
10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
12.1ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/5/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.81ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
North Chestnut St
System Test
10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.64ng/L
15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
4542 NW Rae Ct
System Test
10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
11.5ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/5/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.38ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
Stone Leaf
System Test
10/5/2023
NDNDNDND


Well Locations:


**Updated 9/29/25** Well 13 has been turned off for the season. We will notify water customers when it is turned on again to meet higher usage during the summer months.

**Updated 10/1/25** NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR PFAS IN WELL 13 Read Notice Here

**UPDATED 7/24/25** Notice of Violation for PFAS in Well 13 Read the full letter here.

**UPDATED 4/22/25**

The City is planning a new project in order to help mitigate PFAS from Well 13.The City’s new PFAS filtration construction project is anticipated to start in mid to late August of this year and run for 18 months ending in early 2027. A contractor is expected to be selected by July for the project.

The city has chosen ion exchange (IX) media to treat the water from Well 13. IX media was chosen over other medias due to its specific ability to treat the PFAS family of chemicals, since the city’s water is clear of other contaminants. We'll provide more updates as they become available.

**Updated 7/12/24**

Thank you to everyone who was able to attend the joint open house hosted by City of Camas, in conjunction with the Washington State Department of Ecology, Clark County Public Health and the Washington State Department of Health, July 9, 2024, at Lacamas Lake Lodge. For those that were unable to attend, please view the Open House Information Boards below, or through the Documents section to the right. For additional information visit: https://doh.wa.gov/community-and-environment/contaminants/pfas


We have also completed the 2023 Consumer Confidence Report, which you can find here: https://www.cityofcamas.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/9486/2023ccr.pdf

To view previous updates: https://engagecamas.com/21559/widgets/70670/documents/57246

*Please note, the City tests for numerous Perfluorinated Compounds that fall under PFAS, we will only show results that are detectable. Table updated 9/29/25








City Well No.
DOH Source No.Testing Date
PFAS Measured
Result
State Action Level (SAL)
Result
Well 5

063/22/2022(PFOS) PFoctane Sulfonic acid 6.9ng/L15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.6ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane Sulfonic acid
3.7ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
8/5/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
7.3ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
5.4ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
3.5ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBA) PFbutanoic acid
2.2ng/L
None
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
11/9/2022(PFBA) PFbutanoic acid
6.9ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
5.3ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
3.9ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFPeA) PFpentanoic acid
2.7ng/L
None
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFHxA) PFhexanoic acid
2.3ng/L
None
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBA) PFbutanoic acid
2.6ng/L
None
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
4/4/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
6.2ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
3.1ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
7/11/24(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid

4.8ng/L
10ng/LPFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)

(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid

7.2ng/L

15ng/LPFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)

(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.8ng/L
345ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFHxA) PFhexanoic acid
3.8ng/L
None
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
Well 13
168/5/2022(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
25ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: At or Exceeding State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.9ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.1ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
3/23/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.8ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
6/8/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
8.84ng/L
15ng/l
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
6/13/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
9.76ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.23ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
6/22/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
10.5ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.13ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
7/13/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
15.8ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: At or Exceeding State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
4.27ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.1ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
12/5/2022(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
17ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: At or Exceeding State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.3
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/31/2023(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
3.8 ng/L

345ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
4.4ng/L

10ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid

12ng/L15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
12/5/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
7ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.8 ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.6 ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
4/4/24(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.5ng/l15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
7/11/24(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
8.4ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
6/17/25(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
5.8 ng/L

10ng/L


PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)

345ng/L
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid

2.2 ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)

(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
32.6 ng/L15ng/L

PFAS Detected: At or Exceeding State Action Level (SAL)
7/2/25
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid

46.9 ng/L

15ng/L



PFAS Detected: At or Exceeding State Action Level (SAL)

9/15/25(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid


27.7 ng/L


15ng/L


PFAS Detected: At or Exceeding State Action Level (SAL)

(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid

4.6 ng/L


10ng/L



PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)

(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid

2.2 ng/L


345ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)


Well 14
(In general use)
177/13/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.18ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.19ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.35ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
"Well Field East"
(In general use - Sampling location is after blending of Wells 6 and 14)
183/22/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.3ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
11/9/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.6ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.4ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid

2.4ng/L

345ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
9/27/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
5.9ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.8ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.0ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
9/24/24(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.2ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
"Oak Park Well Field"
(In general use - Sampling Location is after blending of Wells 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12)
193/22/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.1ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
11/9/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.2ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.2ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
4/4/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.2ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
7/13/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.69ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.28ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
9/27/23(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.4ng/L
15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
1.0ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
5711 SE Strong Road (Crown Road Booster Station)
System Test8/23/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
2.69ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
27200 Robinson Road
System Test
9/11/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.0ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
Deer Haven
System Test

9/11/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
13.7ng/L
15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
9/11/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.9ng/L
10ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
Crown Park
System Test

9/11/2023

(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid

11.5ng/L


15ng/L


PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
9/11/2023

(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid

3.11ng/L
10ng/L


PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
NE Sitka Dr
System Test


9/11/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid

2.8ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
NW Woodburn Drive
System Test



10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
9.88ng/L
15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/5/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid

2.03ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
1620 SE 8th Ave
System Test
10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
14.4ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/5/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.69ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
2822 NW 18th Ave
System Test
10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
12.1ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/5/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.81ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
North Chestnut St
System Test
10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.64ng/L
15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
4542 NW Rae Ct
System Test
10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
11.5ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/5/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.38ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
Stone Leaf
System Test
10/5/2023
NDNDNDND


Well Locations:


Questions about PFAS?

loader image
Didn't receive confirmation?
Seems like you are already registered, please provide the password. Forgot your password? Create a new one now.
  • Share Clearly the problem with Well 13 is getting worse and efforts to remedy this only seem to be to help the symptom (by 2027) but not the cause. Is there any plan to trace the sources of the contamination and hold those responsible accountable? on Facebook Share Clearly the problem with Well 13 is getting worse and efforts to remedy this only seem to be to help the symptom (by 2027) but not the cause. Is there any plan to trace the sources of the contamination and hold those responsible accountable? on Twitter Share Clearly the problem with Well 13 is getting worse and efforts to remedy this only seem to be to help the symptom (by 2027) but not the cause. Is there any plan to trace the sources of the contamination and hold those responsible accountable? on Linkedin Email Clearly the problem with Well 13 is getting worse and efforts to remedy this only seem to be to help the symptom (by 2027) but not the cause. Is there any plan to trace the sources of the contamination and hold those responsible accountable? link

    Clearly the problem with Well 13 is getting worse and efforts to remedy this only seem to be to help the symptom (by 2027) but not the cause. Is there any plan to trace the sources of the contamination and hold those responsible accountable?

    mflevine asked 2 months ago

    Thank you for your question and thank you for using Engage Camas. The City recently had a consultant complete a contaminant study which involved reviewing businesses which are currently operating, as well as previous businesses operating over a 30 year period in the catchment area for Well 13. Unfortunately, the Study found no obvious source of the PFAS.  

    This ultimately leads us to believe that the contamination we're currently experiencing is from years of the product slowly entering the groundwater system from residential and commercial uses. 

  • Share When are you going to post the latest PFAS levels in Well 13 that exceeded the EPA Standard by almost 10 times? This is extremely important information to get to the public. on Facebook Share When are you going to post the latest PFAS levels in Well 13 that exceeded the EPA Standard by almost 10 times? This is extremely important information to get to the public. on Twitter Share When are you going to post the latest PFAS levels in Well 13 that exceeded the EPA Standard by almost 10 times? This is extremely important information to get to the public. on Linkedin Email When are you going to post the latest PFAS levels in Well 13 that exceeded the EPA Standard by almost 10 times? This is extremely important information to get to the public. link

    When are you going to post the latest PFAS levels in Well 13 that exceeded the EPA Standard by almost 10 times? This is extremely important information to get to the public.

    Basstalker asked 3 months ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas and thank you for your question. The posting of the testing results was pending a letter being sent out to all residents per state guidelines. However, the results for Well 13 have been posted. The first sample was received on 6/17 by the lab and had a PFOS of 32.6 ppt and second sample was received 7/2 and PFOS was 46.9 ppt. Both are over the 15 ppt SAL (State Allowable Level). PFOA for the first sample was 5.81 ppt which is under the SAL of 10. The second sample was ND for all the other chemicals.

  • Share Have the two maintenance deficient wells been repaired and if not, how much longer do you expect repairs to take? Has any testing been for any PFAS compounds been done on Well 13 since the repairs began and if so, what are the results? on Facebook Share Have the two maintenance deficient wells been repaired and if not, how much longer do you expect repairs to take? Has any testing been for any PFAS compounds been done on Well 13 since the repairs began and if so, what are the results? on Twitter Share Have the two maintenance deficient wells been repaired and if not, how much longer do you expect repairs to take? Has any testing been for any PFAS compounds been done on Well 13 since the repairs began and if so, what are the results? on Linkedin Email Have the two maintenance deficient wells been repaired and if not, how much longer do you expect repairs to take? Has any testing been for any PFAS compounds been done on Well 13 since the repairs began and if so, what are the results? link

    Have the two maintenance deficient wells been repaired and if not, how much longer do you expect repairs to take? Has any testing been for any PFAS compounds been done on Well 13 since the repairs began and if so, what are the results?

    Basstalker asked over 1 year ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas and thank you for your questions. Both wells that were out of operation for maintenance purposes are now operating. Three samples of Well 13 have been taken since it was activated in mid-May, all three were below the State Action Level of 15 ppt.

  • Share Appreciate the response to my request. I would suggest the City and Utilities turn off every sprinkler that is watering public green space to limit the need for Well 13 water. Since I do not have yard sprinklers, I shall do my part and ask City to do the same. on Facebook Share Appreciate the response to my request. I would suggest the City and Utilities turn off every sprinkler that is watering public green space to limit the need for Well 13 water. Since I do not have yard sprinklers, I shall do my part and ask City to do the same. on Twitter Share Appreciate the response to my request. I would suggest the City and Utilities turn off every sprinkler that is watering public green space to limit the need for Well 13 water. Since I do not have yard sprinklers, I shall do my part and ask City to do the same. on Linkedin Email Appreciate the response to my request. I would suggest the City and Utilities turn off every sprinkler that is watering public green space to limit the need for Well 13 water. Since I do not have yard sprinklers, I shall do my part and ask City to do the same. link

    Appreciate the response to my request. I would suggest the City and Utilities turn off every sprinkler that is watering public green space to limit the need for Well 13 water. Since I do not have yard sprinklers, I shall do my part and ask City to do the same.

    marklabar asked over 1 year ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas, and thank you for your comment and suggestion. This has been shared with staff.

  • Share Interesting to note that well 5, one of the furthest wells away from the GP Mill site now (as of 4/4/24) registers a PFOS contamination level that exceeds the EPA's drinking water standard. This shows the rate of growth and extent of contamination that has impacted the City's water supply. While it is stated in the recent update (5/21/24) that the highest priority is monitoring, when will finding the source of PFAS contamination and reducing the risk to our entire water supply become a priority? on Facebook Share Interesting to note that well 5, one of the furthest wells away from the GP Mill site now (as of 4/4/24) registers a PFOS contamination level that exceeds the EPA's drinking water standard. This shows the rate of growth and extent of contamination that has impacted the City's water supply. While it is stated in the recent update (5/21/24) that the highest priority is monitoring, when will finding the source of PFAS contamination and reducing the risk to our entire water supply become a priority? on Twitter Share Interesting to note that well 5, one of the furthest wells away from the GP Mill site now (as of 4/4/24) registers a PFOS contamination level that exceeds the EPA's drinking water standard. This shows the rate of growth and extent of contamination that has impacted the City's water supply. While it is stated in the recent update (5/21/24) that the highest priority is monitoring, when will finding the source of PFAS contamination and reducing the risk to our entire water supply become a priority? on Linkedin Email Interesting to note that well 5, one of the furthest wells away from the GP Mill site now (as of 4/4/24) registers a PFOS contamination level that exceeds the EPA's drinking water standard. This shows the rate of growth and extent of contamination that has impacted the City's water supply. While it is stated in the recent update (5/21/24) that the highest priority is monitoring, when will finding the source of PFAS contamination and reducing the risk to our entire water supply become a priority? link

    Interesting to note that well 5, one of the furthest wells away from the GP Mill site now (as of 4/4/24) registers a PFOS contamination level that exceeds the EPA's drinking water standard. This shows the rate of growth and extent of contamination that has impacted the City's water supply. While it is stated in the recent update (5/21/24) that the highest priority is monitoring, when will finding the source of PFAS contamination and reducing the risk to our entire water supply become a priority?

    Basstalker asked over 1 year ago

    Thank you for your comments/question and thank you for using Engage Camas. Investigating potential sources is part of the City’s current strategy and work program with our consultant team, including updating our current groundwater flow model. However, PFAS has been so broadly used over the last few decades that it’s been proven to be very difficult to find actual sources of contamination. The City will continue investigating, but will also be working on developing and evaluating treatment alternatives and other long-term strategies to provide water into the future.

  • Share Clearly the City of Camas has a water problem. Not just Well 13, but all other wells contain PFAS, some more than others. In April, the Environmental Protection Agency set drinking water limits for six forever chemicals, including PFOS and PFBS; PFOS and PFBS are PFAS compounds. The agency noted that PFOS is "likely to cause cancer" and that no level of the chemical is considered safe. Studies link PFAS to an increased risk of some cancers, developmental effects in children, reduced immune function, interference with hormones and other health harms. Virtually everyone now has at least one PFAS compound in their blood, according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. So why then should we allow the City to use Well 13 as a "regular water source from June 1 through Fall 2024"? I say, turn it off, please, and do not hide behind State Action Level and NPDWR rules that provide 5 years to implement solutions and instead make a solution the most urgent priority for all citizens and visitors of the City of Camas. on Facebook Share Clearly the City of Camas has a water problem. Not just Well 13, but all other wells contain PFAS, some more than others. In April, the Environmental Protection Agency set drinking water limits for six forever chemicals, including PFOS and PFBS; PFOS and PFBS are PFAS compounds. The agency noted that PFOS is "likely to cause cancer" and that no level of the chemical is considered safe. Studies link PFAS to an increased risk of some cancers, developmental effects in children, reduced immune function, interference with hormones and other health harms. Virtually everyone now has at least one PFAS compound in their blood, according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. So why then should we allow the City to use Well 13 as a "regular water source from June 1 through Fall 2024"? I say, turn it off, please, and do not hide behind State Action Level and NPDWR rules that provide 5 years to implement solutions and instead make a solution the most urgent priority for all citizens and visitors of the City of Camas. on Twitter Share Clearly the City of Camas has a water problem. Not just Well 13, but all other wells contain PFAS, some more than others. In April, the Environmental Protection Agency set drinking water limits for six forever chemicals, including PFOS and PFBS; PFOS and PFBS are PFAS compounds. The agency noted that PFOS is "likely to cause cancer" and that no level of the chemical is considered safe. Studies link PFAS to an increased risk of some cancers, developmental effects in children, reduced immune function, interference with hormones and other health harms. Virtually everyone now has at least one PFAS compound in their blood, according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. So why then should we allow the City to use Well 13 as a "regular water source from June 1 through Fall 2024"? I say, turn it off, please, and do not hide behind State Action Level and NPDWR rules that provide 5 years to implement solutions and instead make a solution the most urgent priority for all citizens and visitors of the City of Camas. on Linkedin Email Clearly the City of Camas has a water problem. Not just Well 13, but all other wells contain PFAS, some more than others. In April, the Environmental Protection Agency set drinking water limits for six forever chemicals, including PFOS and PFBS; PFOS and PFBS are PFAS compounds. The agency noted that PFOS is "likely to cause cancer" and that no level of the chemical is considered safe. Studies link PFAS to an increased risk of some cancers, developmental effects in children, reduced immune function, interference with hormones and other health harms. Virtually everyone now has at least one PFAS compound in their blood, according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. So why then should we allow the City to use Well 13 as a "regular water source from June 1 through Fall 2024"? I say, turn it off, please, and do not hide behind State Action Level and NPDWR rules that provide 5 years to implement solutions and instead make a solution the most urgent priority for all citizens and visitors of the City of Camas. link

    Clearly the City of Camas has a water problem. Not just Well 13, but all other wells contain PFAS, some more than others. In April, the Environmental Protection Agency set drinking water limits for six forever chemicals, including PFOS and PFBS; PFOS and PFBS are PFAS compounds. The agency noted that PFOS is "likely to cause cancer" and that no level of the chemical is considered safe. Studies link PFAS to an increased risk of some cancers, developmental effects in children, reduced immune function, interference with hormones and other health harms. Virtually everyone now has at least one PFAS compound in their blood, according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. So why then should we allow the City to use Well 13 as a "regular water source from June 1 through Fall 2024"? I say, turn it off, please, and do not hide behind State Action Level and NPDWR rules that provide 5 years to implement solutions and instead make a solution the most urgent priority for all citizens and visitors of the City of Camas.

    marklabar asked over 1 year ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas and thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, due to water consumption, we can not turn off Well 13 during the summer months, unless we have an alternative source. Please note, your comments have been made public and will be shared with Administration and Staff. 

  • Share When do you expect to issue a Clean Water report (Consumer Confidence report) for the year 2023? Also is there any new PFAS data to report? on Facebook Share When do you expect to issue a Clean Water report (Consumer Confidence report) for the year 2023? Also is there any new PFAS data to report? on Twitter Share When do you expect to issue a Clean Water report (Consumer Confidence report) for the year 2023? Also is there any new PFAS data to report? on Linkedin Email When do you expect to issue a Clean Water report (Consumer Confidence report) for the year 2023? Also is there any new PFAS data to report? link

    When do you expect to issue a Clean Water report (Consumer Confidence report) for the year 2023? Also is there any new PFAS data to report?

    Basstalker asked over 1 year ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas and thank you for your questions. The CCR is due in July each year, and we usually try to make it available by June. Please note, we will post it to this site once it's complete. In terms of testing, the most recent test for 2024 were conducted in March. We're awaiting the results and will post as soon as we receive those. 

  • Share Has the City of Camas developed a risk management plan that addresses the following circumstances - 1) Compromise of well 13 and inability to use this for repeated tests above the PFAS SAL? 2) Compromise of any other well/wellfield with tests above the PFAS SAL? 3) Treatment options (either individual wells or groups of wells in a wellfield) to safely deliver water from ANYWHERE in the system? 4) Funding increases to ratepayers vs grants or low interest revolving funds? 5) Vulnerability to potential contaminants of concern from any potential discharges (air, soil, or water/groundwater) within a mile of any supply wells? on Facebook Share Has the City of Camas developed a risk management plan that addresses the following circumstances - 1) Compromise of well 13 and inability to use this for repeated tests above the PFAS SAL? 2) Compromise of any other well/wellfield with tests above the PFAS SAL? 3) Treatment options (either individual wells or groups of wells in a wellfield) to safely deliver water from ANYWHERE in the system? 4) Funding increases to ratepayers vs grants or low interest revolving funds? 5) Vulnerability to potential contaminants of concern from any potential discharges (air, soil, or water/groundwater) within a mile of any supply wells? on Twitter Share Has the City of Camas developed a risk management plan that addresses the following circumstances - 1) Compromise of well 13 and inability to use this for repeated tests above the PFAS SAL? 2) Compromise of any other well/wellfield with tests above the PFAS SAL? 3) Treatment options (either individual wells or groups of wells in a wellfield) to safely deliver water from ANYWHERE in the system? 4) Funding increases to ratepayers vs grants or low interest revolving funds? 5) Vulnerability to potential contaminants of concern from any potential discharges (air, soil, or water/groundwater) within a mile of any supply wells? on Linkedin Email Has the City of Camas developed a risk management plan that addresses the following circumstances - 1) Compromise of well 13 and inability to use this for repeated tests above the PFAS SAL? 2) Compromise of any other well/wellfield with tests above the PFAS SAL? 3) Treatment options (either individual wells or groups of wells in a wellfield) to safely deliver water from ANYWHERE in the system? 4) Funding increases to ratepayers vs grants or low interest revolving funds? 5) Vulnerability to potential contaminants of concern from any potential discharges (air, soil, or water/groundwater) within a mile of any supply wells? link

    Has the City of Camas developed a risk management plan that addresses the following circumstances - 1) Compromise of well 13 and inability to use this for repeated tests above the PFAS SAL? 2) Compromise of any other well/wellfield with tests above the PFAS SAL? 3) Treatment options (either individual wells or groups of wells in a wellfield) to safely deliver water from ANYWHERE in the system? 4) Funding increases to ratepayers vs grants or low interest revolving funds? 5) Vulnerability to potential contaminants of concern from any potential discharges (air, soil, or water/groundwater) within a mile of any supply wells?

    Soldier76 asked about 2 years ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas. All of these items have been, and are being, reviewed in one form or another through staff and current on-call consultants (hydrogeologists). In addition to current staff and on-call consultants, the City has also began the process of bringing on a larger team to review the potential effects of the PFAS on the system that we’ve seen to date, complete further investigation, develop options for treatment, help track EPA rulemaking, etc. Since being made aware of the PFAS in the water system, the City has been primarily focused on trying to determine the extent of PFAS in our groundwater sources (wells) and throughout the system as that is the most pressing issue. Though there is no immediate apparent contaminate area around the wells, more specifically around Well 13 which has PFAS levels above the State Action Level, the City has also began a process to monitor areas around Well 13 to determine the extent of the PFAS plume in the groundwater. It’s anticipated that additional investigation will occur around not only Well 13, but also around the Lower Washougal River Wellfield once we have additional consultant resources available. As discussed above, to date, the City has been using staff and our on-call hydrogeologists to monitor EPAs proposed rulemaking and has begun the process of bringing on a larger team to review the potential effects of the PFAS on the system that we’ve seen to date, complete further investigation, develop options for treatment, help track EPA rulemaking, etc. 

  • Share What is Camas doing to fix this problem? This should be the most important issue facing Camas. Not roundabouts, housing or any other issue. The photos are not expanded, where is well 13? on Facebook Share What is Camas doing to fix this problem? This should be the most important issue facing Camas. Not roundabouts, housing or any other issue. The photos are not expanded, where is well 13? on Twitter Share What is Camas doing to fix this problem? This should be the most important issue facing Camas. Not roundabouts, housing or any other issue. The photos are not expanded, where is well 13? on Linkedin Email What is Camas doing to fix this problem? This should be the most important issue facing Camas. Not roundabouts, housing or any other issue. The photos are not expanded, where is well 13? link

    What is Camas doing to fix this problem? This should be the most important issue facing Camas. Not roundabouts, housing or any other issue. The photos are not expanded, where is well 13?

    Dhinesley asked about 2 years ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas and sorry for the delayed reply. Well 13 is located on Cramer Lane off of 1st Avenue to the southeast of Louis Bloch Park. The City continues to put significant resources towards this topic to determine the best path forward for the community. Please continue to check back to the Engage Camas site for updated information. 

  • Share Hello everyone, we are Retired and my disabled Veteran husband and I are Worried. We are on Camas Water. We're always careful about using water and our bills are already high. We pay for our home water and I have to buy water from outside sources now which is also heavy for us to carry. Sadly Thinking of how to buy a house filter and is there something you can do for us. Will you give us some compensation for this. We would be going into Credit card debt for the filter. We have been using the Refrigerator filter but it doesn't filter everything. Thank you for your help sincerely Christina. on Facebook Share Hello everyone, we are Retired and my disabled Veteran husband and I are Worried. We are on Camas Water. We're always careful about using water and our bills are already high. We pay for our home water and I have to buy water from outside sources now which is also heavy for us to carry. Sadly Thinking of how to buy a house filter and is there something you can do for us. Will you give us some compensation for this. We would be going into Credit card debt for the filter. We have been using the Refrigerator filter but it doesn't filter everything. Thank you for your help sincerely Christina. on Twitter Share Hello everyone, we are Retired and my disabled Veteran husband and I are Worried. We are on Camas Water. We're always careful about using water and our bills are already high. We pay for our home water and I have to buy water from outside sources now which is also heavy for us to carry. Sadly Thinking of how to buy a house filter and is there something you can do for us. Will you give us some compensation for this. We would be going into Credit card debt for the filter. We have been using the Refrigerator filter but it doesn't filter everything. Thank you for your help sincerely Christina. on Linkedin Email Hello everyone, we are Retired and my disabled Veteran husband and I are Worried. We are on Camas Water. We're always careful about using water and our bills are already high. We pay for our home water and I have to buy water from outside sources now which is also heavy for us to carry. Sadly Thinking of how to buy a house filter and is there something you can do for us. Will you give us some compensation for this. We would be going into Credit card debt for the filter. We have been using the Refrigerator filter but it doesn't filter everything. Thank you for your help sincerely Christina. link

    Hello everyone, we are Retired and my disabled Veteran husband and I are Worried. We are on Camas Water. We're always careful about using water and our bills are already high. We pay for our home water and I have to buy water from outside sources now which is also heavy for us to carry. Sadly Thinking of how to buy a house filter and is there something you can do for us. Will you give us some compensation for this. We would be going into Credit card debt for the filter. We have been using the Refrigerator filter but it doesn't filter everything. Thank you for your help sincerely Christina.

    Cabong60 asked about 2 years ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas and sorry for the delayed reply. Thank you for your husband’s service. Unfortunately, the City is not compensating individuals or households for the purchase of filters. PFAS limits are based on long-term health exposures and if you’re concerned about the need to use filtered water, we recommend that you speak with your health care provider. If you decide to use filters in your home, we would also recommend that you use reliable sources like the Environmental Protection Agency or Washington State Department of Health to find products that have been certified to remove PFAS. Links to these pages can be found in the included FAQs on the Engage Camas site. Because this is a world-wide issue, there are also a multitude of reliable scientific agencies that have completed research on available filters and their efficacy in removing PFAS.

Page last updated: 01 Oct 2025, 10:17 AM