Trump officials want to cut PFA restrictions in drinking water – what are the impact? |Trump Administration

The Trump administration announced it would try to kill some powerful new PFA “forever chemical” drinking water restrictions set in April 2024.

While these moves will bring a clear victory for the U.S. chemical and hydropower industries, it is unclear whether the move will succeed, what it means for the long-term safety of American drinking water and its impact on progress in addressing perpetual chemical pollution.

Observers say the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is trying to violate the law and even if they survive legal challenges, progress under the Biden administration cannot be completely revoked. The regulatory and legal battles that public health advocates have won at the state level also have some motivation, and in courts, regardless of how the EPA is backtracking, it will ultimately improve the water of water.

Nevertheless, the announcement raises new questions about the hydropower industry, which triggers attacks on new rules. The announcement represents a blow to prevalent environmental and public health issues, with remarkable success in recent years.

“Through this action, the EPA has made it clear that it is willing to ignore Americans who just want to turn on the kitchen faucet and have clean, safe water,” said Erik Olson, senior director of health strategy at NRDC. The nonprofit is an intervener in legal action on the issue and lobbying for restrictions.

PFA is a class of chemicals commonly used to make products resistant to water, stains and heat. They are called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down naturally and are associated with cancer, liver problems, thyroid problems, birth defects, kidney disease, reduced immunity and other serious health problems.

These chemicals are everywhere in the environment and are believed to contaminate drinking water in the drinking water of more than 200 million people in the United States. The 2024 PFA rules mark 27 years since the EPA provides new drinking water restrictions for pollutants.

EPA creates restrictions for six PFA compounds, with the Trump administration targeting four of them – PFNA, PFHXS and HFPO dimer acids, more commonly found in GENX.

But, in theory, the Safe Drinking Water Act would prevent the EPA from simply killing or even weakening restrictions, as it includes an “anti-betrayal” rule that prohibits easing restrictions. It noted that the amendment “should maintain or provide greater protection of human health.”

“The EPA cannot abolish or weaken drinking water standards – such actions are not only harmful, but illegal,” Olson said.

However, the hydropower and chemical industries have sued restrictions in attempting to kill all six PFAs, not just four PFAs announced yesterday. The EPA and the Justice Department under Joe Biden have begun defending these rules, and it is unclear how the Donald Trump EPA case will handle cases that announce the four PFA restrictions that are intended to be revoked.

Policies for environmental responsibility for public employees Kyla Bennett, a former EPA scientist, said she suspects the agency and the Justice Department would actually try to lose the case.

“The Justice Department can stop defending and doing mean work and make the court say, 'this is not based on the limitations of science and then knock it out,'” Bennett said. These rules will then be defended by legal interveners like the NRDC.

Olson details other legal options for the institution, which involves amending the rules. This may be more time than the Trump administration has served, but it delays the implementation of the rules.

“It will take a few years and they will kick the jar because they aren't bad,” Bennett added.

The proposal chops the blanket’s protection against four PFAs, and the restrictions on PFOA and PFO also limit the restrictions. The reverse osmosis system utility is being installed to remove PFOs, and PFOA will capture most other PFAs as well. However, not all hydropower is installed in systems that can capture smaller PFAs, such as Genx.

Additionally, Chemours is responsible for high levels of Genx pollution around PFAS plants in North Carolina and West Virginia. The local consent agreement uses EPA restrictions as a cleanup standard and requires companies to provide safe drinking water to affected residents.

Olson said the full impact on these communities is unclear, but the EPA’s plan “is exactly what Chemours wants.”

The development also highlights the need for reforms to the country's hydropower industry, which led the allegations of restrictions. What happens when the public industry, which is primarily responsible for ensuring the safety of the country, opposes clean water rules?

“It’s definitely a huge problem,” Olson said. “Most people will be shocked to hear their utility bills lobbying, litigation and meeting public health requirements rather than using money to install a better water supply system.”

Advocates say there are few good quick answers. Nevertheless, EPA actions and utilities don't slow down. Part of these lawsuits already have more than $12 billion in legal settlements. Meanwhile, the federal government has made more than $20 billion and is working on many projects, while states have enacted their own restrictions and provided some funding.

It is “retaining restrictions on PFOA, PFO, PFO” and “is in a way to safeguard the agency's nationwide protection from PFOA and PFO in the water,” the Trump administration wrote in its press release.

The statement did not impress the campaigners.

“It's just a lie, the press release is gas lighting,” Bennett said.