Blog by: Emma Carlo
Following a change in presidential administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals in a civil suit to rescind, and therefore weaken, regulations regarding safe drinking water.[i] These regulations addressed the presence of six specific short-chain chemicals called PFAS which are known to increase an individual's risk of cancer and other health risks such as kidney and liver damage, harm to reproductive systems, and cardiovascular diseases.[ii] The danger of these chemicals is evident by the fact that even low levels of the chemicals can still cause adverse health risks.[iii] Importantly, more than 70 million people utilize water systems with PFAS levels that are above the safe limit.[iv] Additionally, these chemicals, also known as “forever chemicals,” are known to take upwards of thousands of years to breakdown in the environment.[v] Instead of maintaining the existing regulations for PFAS chemicals, the newly proposed regulations will only filter out two types of the PFAS rather than all six of the ones regulated by the prior administration, hence leaving the country at risk for drinking water with higher levels of contamination than what is considered safe.[vi]
This action is demonstrative of the trend towards deregulation currently happening within the EPA.[vii] Where the core of this action is hidden under the guise of improving efficiency, the true purpose is one of corporate favoritism and allotting more power to the chemical industry, rather than a true concern for regulatory burden or the country’s health.[viii] This action revealed that the current administration and utility companies have put a price on the cost of safe drinking water for the public.[ix] The estimated $800 million cost of implementation to filter out PFAS is considered too expensive in protecting public health and has instead been characterized as an economic burden.[x] Moreover, environmental advocates characterize this action as wealthy industries taking advantage of the relationships they have with the administration.[xi]
The current limits on PFAS were recently imposed by the prior administration through an action which environmental advocates counted as a win both for the health of the people and the planet.[xii] Specifically, these limits, known as maximum contaminant levels, set the legal standard as to how much of these chemicals can be allowed in drinking water and still be considered safe.[xiii] This action was the first ever limit to be imposed on such chemicals and were expected to reduce exposure to them for over 100 million people, of which would have prevented 9,600 deaths as well as 30,000 illnesses.[xiv] While the water utility companies were set to fulfill these regulations and fully complete them by 2029, by loosening the reins on regulation the EPA risks severe delay and even potential elimination of safer drinking water as a whole.[xv] Unfortunately, this dangerous choice suggests the conclusion that $800 million is worth more to utility companies and the EPA than the cost of 9,600 lives saved by more stringent safety requirements on drinking water.
Despite the current administration promising to provide clean water and better environmental protection, it also promised fewer and looser regulations.[xvi] As such, there will be less regulations regarding not only drinking water, but greenhouse gas emissions, car emissions, and clean-up standards for coal plant waste.[xvii] The contradictory nature of promising safe and clean drinking water while reversing important regulations that would guarantee it has led many activists to call the EPA a mockery as this deregulation will continue to place the health of Americans and the environment in jeopardy.[xviii] Deregulation of clean drinking water as proposed by the EPA will eliminate or delay desperately needed protection for over 100 million people with water that has contaminants well above the safety standard.[xix]
However, not all hope is lost in the fight against PFAS. Many environmental nonprofit organizations have already filed suit against the EPA, countering the deregulation as a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act.[xx] Generally, this Act provides an anti-backsliding provision which prevents the EPA from repealing or weakening regulations once they are established.[xxi] Thus, to get around this provision, the EPA is asking the court to repeal this regulation on the grounds that it was improperly enacted.[xxii] The decision of the court rests on whether the regulations were properly enacted as per the Safe Drinking Water Act or whether they were improperly enacted on a procedural basis.[xxiii]
Ultimately, in attempting to deregulate safe drinking water, the EPA has proven to be an oxymoron. This current attempt at deregulation does not align with their mission of wanting to “protect human health and the environment,” but is indicative of avoiding expensive implementation costs.[xxiv] Unfortunately, the EPA does not seem to prioritize the very thing they were created to protect and made a costly decision which will adversely affect the health of America.
[i] Trump administration’s EPA plans to weaken limits on some PFAS “forever chemicals” in drinking water, CBS News (May 15, 2025, 9:42 EDT), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-forever-chemicals-rollback-drinking-water/ [https://perma.cc/TRP5-LGXB].
[ii] Margie Kelly & Tylar Greene, EPA Seeks to Roll Back PFAS Drinking Water Rules, Keeping Millions Exposed to Toxic Forever Chemicals in Tap Water, NRDC (Sept. 12, 2025) https://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/epa-seeks-roll-back-pfas-drinking-water-rules-keeping-millions-exposed-toxic-forever [https://perma.cc/X858-28ZM].
[iii] Id.
[iv] Id.
[v] Supra note 1.
[vi] Rachel Frazon, EPA plans to weaken ‘forever chemical’ drinking water limits, The Hill (May 14, 2025 at 9:21 ET), https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5299565-epa-weaken-federal-limits-pfas/ [https://perma.cc/LX34-TUYW].
[vii] Joe Beletti-Naccarato & Benjamin Dario, EPA’s New Regulatory Agenda: Large Changes Coming to PFAS, Waste Management, Water, and Climate Regulations, The nat’l L. Rev. (Sept. 22, 2025), https://natlawreview.com/article/epas-new-regulatory-agenda-large-changes-coming-pfas-waste-management-water-and#google_vignette [https://perma.cc/YHD6-CTZZ].
[viii] Id.
[ix] Hiroko Tabuchi, An Industry Insider’s Changes at the E.P.A. Could Cost Taxpayers Billions, NYTimes (Aug. 28, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/28/climate/steven-cook-epa-pfas-forever-chemicals.html [https://perma.cc/7ZSU-VB8G].
[x] Id.
[xi] Id.
[xii] Nicole Williams, Meet the Activist Fighting PFAS Pollution – and Winning, The Revelator (Aug. 11, 2025), https://therevelator.org/activist-fighting-pfas-pollution/) [https://perma.cc/G6FB-96W5].
[xiii] Id.
[xiv] Frazon, supra note 6.
[xv] Id.
[xvi] Supra note 1.
[xvii] Id.
[xviii] Id.
[xix] Erin Fitzgerald, EPA Announces Illegal Plan to Eliminate Restrictions for Toxic PFAS in Drinking Water, Earth Justice (May 14, 2025), (https://earthjustice.org/press/2025/epa-announces-illegal-plan-to-eliminate-restrictions-for-toxic-pfas-in-drinking-water) [https://perma.cc/9LLV-42GE].
[xx] Williams, supra note 12.
[xxi] Supra note 2.
[xxii] Id.
[xxiii] Id.
[xxiv] Our Mission and What We Do, U.S. EPA, https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do (last accessed Oct. 22, 2025) [https://perma.cc/5WZE-95C9].