In a surprising legal battle, major trade groups representing U.S. water utilities are challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new limits on toxic PFAS chemicals in drinking water. The utilities, tasked with delivering clean and safe water, have a history of opposing regulations that could improve water quality, according to public health advocates.
The History of Utility Industry Opposition to Clean Water Regulations
This is not a new phenomenon. For decades, utilities, through their trade groups, have fought against limits on harmful substances like lead, perchlorate, and even cancer-causing disinfectants. These efforts have often succeeded in delaying, weakening, or outright killing crucial regulations.
Erik Olson, a senior advisor to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Action Fund, noted that utilities played a role in weakening the 1996 revision of the Safe Drinking Water Act. “The EPA has only managed to set one new limit for contaminants—PFAS—and now even that is under threat,” Olson said. He described the utilities’ resistance as a persistent barrier to progress, often aligning them with industries responsible for pollution.
The Role of Trade Groups
Two major organizations spearhead these efforts: the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the Association of Metropolitan Water Companies. The AWWA, which began as a public health group, now faces criticism for working against rules that could clean up drinking water. Critics point out the irony that these groups are funded by consumers’ water bills, essentially making customers pay for the fight against regulations that could improve their water quality.
Cheryl Porter, head of the AWWA and an executive with the Great Lakes Water Authority, has come under fire for her role in opposing the EPA’s proposed PFAS regulations. PFAS chemicals are a significant problem in Michigan, where Porter operates, yet her organization has actively challenged EPA proposals to address them. When asked for comment, the AWWA stated that while it supports PFAS regulation, it opposes the EPA’s proposed limits, claiming they are based on flawed science.
Downplaying Risks and Inflating Costs
The water utility industry often dismisses public health risks associated with toxic substances like PFAS. During a late 2023 conference, an AWWA official questioned whether regulating PFAS would significantly reduce public health risks. This stance is contradicted by overwhelming scientific evidence showing PFAS to be hazardous even at very low levels.
Another frequent argument from utility groups is the high cost of removing toxic substances from drinking water. They claim these expenses are unsustainable and pass the burden onto consumers. In the case of lead pipe replacement, the AWWA successfully lobbied against a 1991 EPA rule that would have required utilities to remove lead lines. As a result, many water systems across the country still contain lead, decades later.
In response to pressure from the Biden administration, which has committed $3.5 billion to replacing all lead lines within ten years, the AWWA has countered that the timeline and costs—estimated at $90 billion—are unrealistic. However, Olson from the NRDC contends that these figures are inflated deliberately to undermine the initiative.
“If they had agreed to a reasonable time frame back in 1991, the pipes would already be gone,” Olson said. “Instead, they’ve been fighting this for decades.”
A Pattern of Resistance
Public health advocates point to a longstanding pattern of obstruction. In the 1990s, the EPA attempted to regulate carcinogenic byproducts from water disinfectants, but the Chlorine Chemistry Council, backed by utility trade groups, sued to block the rules. The EPA eventually caved, and the resulting regulations were far weaker than originally intended.
A similar story unfolded in 2011 when the EPA moved to set limits for perchlorate, a toxic chemical used in rocket fuel. Perchlorate contaminates water for 12 million Americans, but industry pressure, particularly from the AWWA, has prevented the rule from being implemented. The complexity of the Safe Drinking Water Act’s revised limit-setting process, influenced by utility lobbying, has allowed such delays to persist.
Political and Economic Pressure on Utilities
Public health advocates acknowledge that meeting new water quality standards poses significant financial challenges. Many utilities already struggle with infrastructure issues and receive criticism for shutting off water services for low-income households. The political pressure to keep rates low has contributed to the deteriorating state of water systems across the country.
Elin Betanzo, a Michigan-based utility consultant, explained that water rates have been kept “artificially low” due to this pressure. Meanwhile, the lack of investment in infrastructure has left many districts with outdated and inadequate systems. Betanzo also pointed out the shortage of technical experts needed to operate and maintain water systems, calling for more investment in workforce development.
Governments, at all levels, need to spend more to help utilities meet new regulations, according to advocates. However, they argue that utilities often spend their resources fighting regulations instead of lobbying for funding. “They say, ‘Our customers need low water rates,’ but nobody wants to save money on unsafe water,” Betanzo said. “Somehow they have enough money for lobbyists to fight regulations.”
The Broader Context: Ideological Opposition
The AWWA and similar trade groups argue that their opposition to new rules stems from concerns over costs and feasibility. In a statement to The Guardian, the AWWA claimed it supports new rules in principle but is pushing for a “polluter pays” system, where industries responsible for contamination bear the costs of cleaning up water, rather than consumers.
But advocates like Olson argue that many utilities are led by individuals who are ideologically opposed to regulations of any kind. “It’s often the loudest voices—the ones that don’t want to do anything—that dominate the conversation,” he said.
The Case for Home Filtration
While the legal battles play out, many homeowners are turning to reverse osmosis filtration and whole-home water conditioners as a solution. Reverse osmosis systems are particularly effective at removing PFAS and other contaminants from drinking water, providing an additional layer of protection where municipal systems may fall short. These systems work by forcing water through a semi-permeable membrane, leaving harmful chemicals behind.
Whole-home water conditioners, which can soften water and remove other impurities, offer broader benefits. In areas with aging infrastructure, these systems can mitigate the risks associated with lead, PFAS, and other contaminants, offering consumers some control over their water quality even as the fight for stricter regulations continues.
Source: The Guardian