The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced what it describes as a comprehensive, lifecycle-based strategy to tackle per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water. The package includes two proposed rules, nearly $1 billion in grant funding, and a showcase of treatment and destruction technologies, unveiled alongside HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at a PFAS destruction event in Washington. But while the agency frames the move as building more durable protections, critics argue it amounts to a significant rollback of existing standards, with serious legal and public health implications.
What is actually changing
In practical terms, the two proposed rules do the following. The first maintains drinking water limits for PFOA and PFOS, the two most studied PFAS compounds, but introduces an opt-in mechanism allowing eligible water systems to apply for up to two additional years, until 2031, to achieve compliance. The second goes further: it proposes to rescind existing standards for four PFAS regulated under the previous administration, PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX), and a mixture including PFBS, sending them back to the beginning of the regulatory process.
That second proposal is where the sharpest legal dispute lies. The Safe Drinking Water Act contains an explicit anti-backsliding provision that prohibits the EPA from weakening a drinking water standard once it has been established. The NRDC argues the proposals violate both the letter and intent of that provision. The law also sets a maximum five-year compliance window, which the Biden administration's 2024 rule already granted in full. Extending that deadline by a further two years, critics say, goes beyond what the statute permits. Dr. Anna Reade, Director of PFAS Advocacy at NRDC, warned that EPA is "abandoning communities in desperate need of drinking water protections, especially those who live near polluting industries."
The funding picture: is the money real?
The nearly $1 billion announced, along with the $4 billion in drinking water SRF funds and $5 billion through the Emerging Contaminants grant programme cited by the EPA, all come from the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, whose authorisation expires in September 2026. After that, water utilities would fall back on the permanent State Revolving Fund programmes, which provide ongoing federal loans and grants for water infrastructure. Those base programmes are now facing a proposed 90% cut in the administration's FY2027 budget request. It is worth noting that Congress rejected an identical proposal last year, and the budget request is not binding. Nevertheless, the combination of expiring IIJA funds and deep proposed cuts to the programmes that would replace them raises serious questions about the long-term federal commitment to PFAS infrastructure funding. As EPA's own website acknowledges, the PFAS OUT initiative, presented as a key support tool for affected communities, "does not offer any direct funding or technical assistance."
AWWA and AMWA expressed support for EPA's goal of protecting people from harmful PFAS levels, while stressing the need for adequate implementation time, sound engineering, and standards that are both scientifically rigorous and affordable to implement nationwide. In their words, "providing adequate time to research options, select the best approach based on local circumstances, and implement necessary infrastructure and equipment upgrades is the right path to long-term success."
EPA's stated rationale
The agency contends that the Biden administration bypassed a required sequential process under the Safe Drinking Water Act when regulating the four additional PFAS, combining steps that the law requires to be taken separately and denying the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on whether regulation was appropriate in the first place. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin argued that standards built on a flawed legal foundation are themselves a risk to public health, as they remain vulnerable to being struck down in court. The agency has committed to re-evaluating the four rescinded substances through a corrected process, noting that the outcome could result in standards equal to or stricter than those currently being repealed.
Both proposed rules are open for public comment for 60 days, with a public hearing scheduled for July 7, 2026.
