Americans are feeling the inflationary effects of the Biden Agenda in all walks of life. From gas prices, which recently surpassed $5 per-gallon on average nationally, to skyrocketing food costs, it seems like the price of everything is going up.

Under a new regulatory scheme proposed by the Biden Administration, the price you pay to dispose of your trash may increase significantly as well. Fortunately, there is still time to stop this proposal before it is finalized.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently considering designating a family of man-made chemicals known as polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, as hazardous substances. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, such a designation provides the federal government broad authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of substances that they believe may endanger public health or the environment.

Using the enforcement provisions of CERCLA, the EPA now seeks to restrict the use of PFAS. This misguided designation would have far-reaching fiscal consequences, as these chemicals are involved in producing everything from life-saving medical equipment to semiconductors. Such a blanket designation also fails to recognize the unique chemical makeup of the over 5,000 different PFAS compounds in existence.

Even more concerning is the EPA’s push to curtail the use of PFAS without identifying what level of the chemical, if any, is harmful to human health. Recent guidance from the EPA on PFAS, meanwhile, has only come in the form of “non-enforceable and non-regulatory” health advisories because they still do not have enough data to justify enforceable action. This massive federal power grab is entirely without any legitimate need.

Many may wonder what any of this has to do with trash disposal.

The reality is that PFAS are a key component in countless everyday consumer products such as cosmetics and personal-care items, water-repellent fabrics, non-stick cookware, mattresses, carpeting and, even, dental floss. Without any meaningful way to separate out these products and the countless more that contain PFAS, all waste will be deemed “hazardous” and subjected to much higher disposal costs that municipalities such as Jefferson County, where I used to serve as a county commissioner, will be forced to bear.

In California for example, it costs 5,300% more to dispose of waste deemed hazardous. Moreover, the National Waste & Recycling Association estimates that the increased costs associated with PFAS management could total as much as $6.27 billion more per-year for municipal solid waste landfills. These are real costs that will crimp local budgets.

Even more challenging, the EPA admits there are many things they “don’t fully understand yet” about these chemicals including “how to manage and dispose of PFAS.” It seems unfair, if not impossible to designate PFAS as a hazardous substance and then expect it to be disposed of “properly” if guidance and infrastructure cannot be provided. In effect, the federal government would be creating a rule that cannot be followed but I’m sure would be strictly enforced with hefty fines.

The rush to restrict PFAS is in full swing here in Colorado as well. This year, the General Assembly passed HB22-1345. Coloradans, in effect, could suffer from a one-two punch if this federal super-fund designation is enacted and then HB22-1345 goes into effect. The bill, which is set to be enacted in 2024, creates a regulatory scheme that phases out the sale or distribution of certain products and product categories in the state that contain “intentionally added” PFAS chemicals. Civil penalties will be imposed despite the fact that PFAS is not defined anywhere in the legislation, nor is an acceptable level of the chemical defined. Consumers will ultimately lose access to thousands of products that families and businesses rely on every day and will be faced with even higher costs for goods.

Take the simple example of re-carpeting your home. Under Colorado’s vague new rule, this would require you to choose one that does not contain PFAS — effectively eliminating up to 90% of your options. The installers would then be required to determine if the carpet being removed contains PFAS. If so, it must be disposed of in a facility designated specifically for hazardous materials, of course at a higher cost. This everyday occurrence would quickly become an expensive nightmare.

Policy makers need to carefully consider the adverse effects of onerous PFAS regulations and bans before instituting them wholesale. The economic and fiscal implications of these proposed decisions are broad and come without any clear public health benefit. Before the imposition of possibly ruinous financial sanctions on businesses and state agencies, let’s develop a common-sense regulatory framework and gain a better grasp of the science surrounding these chemicals. To do otherwise is to truly “put the cart before the horse.”

Tina Francone is a former Jefferson County commissioner and a fellow in local government and infrastructure with the Lakewood-based Centennial Institute.