Contributed by Annie McIlwain P.E., Principal, PPM Consultants
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just announced a major shift on drinking water protections — and it’s all about PFAS, the so-called “forever chemicals” that have a bad habit of sticking around in the environment (and in our bodies) for decades. On May 14, 2025, the agency moved to extend compliance timelines and scale back certain regulations, reigniting an old but important debate: How do you balance urgent public health needs against real-world economic pressures faced by local water systems?
In other words: when it comes to clean drinking water, how much risk are we willing to live with — and for how long?
How PFAS Became Everyone’s Problem
PFAS chemicals didn’t start out as villains. Back in the 1940s, scientists at DuPont stumbled upon something remarkable: a slippery, heat-resistant substance that would eventually be branded as Teflon. From frying pans to raincoats to firefighting foam, Teflon made life easier. Behind the scenes, though, one of its key ingredients — PFOA, a PFAS chemical — had some worrying side effects. You can read more on that story in Isaac Smith’s blog from last week.
By the 1960s, DuPont’s internal studies hinted that PFOA exposure might be harmful to human health. But production and use continued, mostly under wraps. It wasn’t until attorney Rob Bilott launched a lawsuit on behalf of West Virginia farmers — later immortalized in the movie Dark Waters — that the scale of the contamination started coming to light. What we know now is unsettling: PFAS chemicals are detectable in the blood of nearly every American, and research “ties” them to cancers, liver problems, immune dysfunction, and developmental harm.
And thanks to their near-indestructibility, once these chemicals get into the water, soil, or our bodies, they’re there for the long haul.
Biden’s Big Move on PFAS
After years of mounting evidence and public pressure, the Biden administration set the first-ever national drinking water standards for PFAS. The new rules set maximum contaminant levels at 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS — two of the most notorious PFAS compounds — and 10 ppt for others like GenX, PFNA, PFBS, and PFHxS.
For comparison, 1 part per trillion is roughly one drop in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. Clearly, these standards were tough, and intentionally so. Utilities were given until 2029 to get compliant — ambitious, but many saw it as a necessary win for public health and as you could imagine, others see it as overly burdensome.
The Rollback: A Step Back or Practical Pause?
Now, under new EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, the agency is hitting the brakes — at least partially. The new plan would:
- Push back the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS from 2029 to 2031
- Rescind the federal drinking water standards for GenX, PFNA, PFBS, and PFHxS
- Launch a new initiative, PFAS OUT, to help smaller utilities monitor and eventually treat for PFAS contamination
The official reason? Smaller and rural water systems, in particular, need more time and funding to build the infrastructure needed to meet the stringent Biden-era limits. Zeldin framed the move as pragmatic, calling PFAS “one of the most complex environmental challenges of our time” and promising continued enforcement against polluters.
Still, not everyone is convinced that more time is harmless. Public health groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) wasted no time criticizing the rollback. They argue that every year of delay risks more cumulative exposure — and that the Safe Drinking Water Act bars weakening standards without strong scientific justification.
Meanwhile, many utilities and industry groups are breathing easier. Upgrading treatment systems to filter PFAS isn’t cheap — the EPA estimated it would cost around $1.5 billion annually. Smaller systems worried those costs would inevitably be passed along to already-strained ratepayers.
Some states aren’t waiting around to see what happens federally. California, among others, has already announced it will move forward with tougher PFAS limits at the state level, signaling that clean water protections may increasingly depend on your zip code.
Echoes of a Bigger Pattern: From WOTUS to PFAS
If you’re getting a sense of déjà vu, you’re not wrong. A few weeks ago I wrote an article about EPA’s move to revise the definition of “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS), narrowing the scope of wetlands and waterways protected under the Clean Water Act. Both moves — WOTUS and PFAS — show a clear trend: scaling back broad federal standards in favor of more local control, longer compliance timelines, and less sweeping regulatory reach.
Supporters say this is about common sense and flexibility, especially for farmers, rural communities, and small businesses. Critics warn it risks creating a patchwork system where public health protections vary wildly depending on geography and affluence.
In either case, it’s clear the EPA is rethinking how far Washington’s hand should extend in environmental protection — even when stakes are high.
What Happens Next?
The fight over PFAS protections isn’t over. Environmental groups are already preparing legal challenges, arguing that weakening finalized drinking water standards may violate the Safe Drinking Water Act. At the same time, expect more states to move forward independently with their own (often stricter) PFAS limits.
Public concern is unlikely to fade either. Clean drinking water remains one of the rare environmental issues with broad bipartisan support — and communities affected by PFAS contamination aren’t backing down.
Final Thoughts
There’s no question that local flexibility matters, especially when it comes to small towns and under-resourced water systems. But when you’re dealing with chemicals that build up inside the human body — and don’t naturally break down — delay has real, lasting consequences.
The EPA’s rollback of PFAS standards, much like its revision of WOTUS, highlights a shift: one that’s more cautious about how quickly and aggressively the federal government intervenes on environmental issues.
The bigger question going forward isn’t just about costs and deadlines. It’s about risk — and how much of it we’re willing to tolerate when it comes to something as fundamental as our drinking water.