Trace amounts of PFAS, the so-called forever chemicals, have turned up in freshwater bodies across western Massachusetts, with the Deerfield River registering 1.3 nanograms per liter, the Chicopee River at 3.9 ng/L, and the Millers River posting the highest reported concentration in the region at 4.8 ng/L. The readings are part of a broader pattern of contamination found across the state's rivers, ponds and lakes, raising fresh questions for anglers, paddlers and anyone who draws drinking water from groundwater fed by these waterways.
The findings come from reporting by the Daily Hampshire Gazette, which also reported concentrations of 3.41 ng/L in Powdermill Brook and 3.7 ng/L in Buck Pond. By far the highest surface-water concentration reported anywhere in Massachusetts was 97 ng/L at Ashumet Pond, located between Falmouth and Mashpee on Cape Cod, according to the same reporting. Those numbers sit against a backdrop in which Massachusetts has no state standard for maximum PFAS contamination levels in surface water, the Gazette reported, even as the state's drinking-water maximum contamination level stands at 20 ng/L, according to Athol Daily News.
How Widespread Is the Contamination
The scope of the testing itself is striking, even if the exact sample size differs between accounts. One account from GBH reported PFAS detected at 87% of 108 Massachusetts locations tested between 2022 and 2024, while the Gazette's reporting put the figure at 87% of 97 locations sampled over the same period. Either way, the detection rate lines up with a national pattern: a nationwide analysis found PFAS at least once at 1,329 of 1,602 monitored surface-water locations, or 83%, according to the MASSPIRG Education Fund.
The analysis behind those numbers drew primarily on EPA Water Quality Portal data, supplemented by monitoring shared by Waterkeeper Alliance and state agencies in Maine and Massachusetts, per the same MASSPIRG report. Researchers detected 114 different PFAS compounds across the included monitoring data, and separately, GBH reported that 30 different PFAS turned up in the Charles River, along the ocean coastline, and in ponds and lakes statewide. Waterways swept into the broader analysis ranged from the Charles River and Jamaica Pond to the Connecticut, Chicopee and Hoosic rivers, GBH reported, with other locations tested including Oxbow Pond in Easthampton, where concentrations reached 2.8 ng/L, and the Connecticut River in Chicopee, at 1.5 ng/L, according to the Gazette's reporting.
Concerns for Anglers Who Eat Their Catch
For anglers along the Deerfield watershed, the numbers carry a personal edge. Paul Beaulieu, a retired environmental scientist and board member of the Deerfield River Watershed Chapter of Trout Unlimited, said the presence of PFAS raises concern for river health and for anglers who fish there, including those who eat their catch. Beaulieu said fishing commonly happens high in the Deerfield watershed, an area often perceived as pristine, and he has personally caught rainbow trout in the river's northern tributaries for chapter fish fries.
Beaulieu suspects PFAS concentrations may run highest near urban areas such as Greenfield, and he said he wants Massachusetts to undertake a more thorough testing regime. He also said that consuming PFAS-impacted fish adds to the chemicals' concentration in the bloodstream, compounding potential health risks. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health advises that continuously eating fish containing PFAS may pose health risks, and the agency has said the chemicals cannot be removed from fish by cutting, cleaning or cooking.
Fish Advisories and the Fine Print
Despite the readings on the Deerfield, there are currently no fish-consumption advisories along that river, the Gazette reported. Statewide, Massachusetts had 64 PFAS-related advisories against eating freshwater fish as of December 2025, including advisories covering the Connecticut and Chicopee rivers. Most of the state's fish-consumption advisories overall are tied to mercury contamination rather than PFAS, per the same reporting.
Separately, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health's 2025 freshwater fish-consumption advisory list notes that advisories for contaminants apply to native game fish but do not apply to stocked trout at a given waterbody unless otherwise indicated, according to the agency's published guidance. PFAS themselves are manmade chemicals that accumulate in the human body, and the compounds have long been used in industrial applications and consumer goods including firefighting turnout gear, Teflon cookware, water-repellent outerwear and waterproof cosmetics. Long-term exposure to certain PFAS has been associated with an increased risk of some cancers, along with suppressed immune function and reproductive health concerns, per MASSPIRG.
Advocates Push for Action at the Source
Deirdre Cummings of MASSPIRG Education Fund said people fish, recreate, swim and boat in waterways that can feed groundwater, wells and municipal drinking water, underscoring why contamination in rivers matters beyond the water itself. Cummings also said that if PFAS is linked to cancer, immune and reproductive issues in people, animal health effects may be expected as well. The group has warned that PFAS may harm wildlife, biodiversity and human recreation, and it has called for more extensive surface-water testing.
MASSPIRG has also advocated that Massachusetts prevent certain PFAS-containing products from being manufactured, imported or discarded in the state. Cummings said addressing the chemicals requires targeting the problem at its source rather than simply monitoring it downstream. One known contamination source closer to home is Joint Base Cape Cod in Buzzards Bay, where aqueous film-forming firefighting foam containing PFAS has been used, a practice likely tied to the elevated readings at nearby Ashumet Pond.
A Starker Example From Maine
The scale of what PFAS contamination can look like at its worst was on display in Maine, where testing by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection found PFOS at 1,040,000 ng/L in a surface-water retention pond following a 1,450-gallon release of aqueous film-forming foam at Brunswick Executive Airport in August 2024, according to MASSPIRG. State officials there recorded it as the highest concentration of any PFAS compound found in their monitoring. The figure dwarfs anything reported in Massachusetts and illustrates the wide range of exposure levels tied to firefighting-foam releases.
Back in western Massachusetts, the lower-level but persistent detections at places like the Ware River, measured at 4.6 ng/L, add to a picture of chemicals quietly spread through the region's waterways rather than concentrated at a single source. With no state surface-water standard in place, residents and anglers are left relying on fish-advisory lists and testing data to gauge where risks may be greatest, even as advocates and local figures like Beaulieu push for deeper scrutiny of a problem regulators have yet to fully define.
