Citing President Donald Trump’s executive order that directs federal agencies to consider delaying implementation of rules published in the Federal Register or that have not taken effect, a group representing U.S cities has asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to delay implementation of recent regulations designed to reduce contaminants in drinking water.

In a letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin dated March 17, 2025, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a non-partisan advocacy organization for cities with populations of 30,000 or more, says the organization is providing comments on the water regulations in accordance with Trump’s executive order—“Regulatory Freeze Pending Review—announced on Jan. 20, 2025.

The order directs the agencies to consider delaying, for 60 days, any rules published in the Federal Register or that have not taken effect so interested parties can provide comment on “issues of fact, law, and policy” to any relevant rulemakings postponed under the executive order.

The letter says increased costs are the reasons the conference urges implementation of the regulations be delayed. The letter says, “Local governments serve as co-regulators in implementing and enforcing many federal laws with states, including the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Act (s), and our members take these responsibilities seriously.

“However, the agency has recently fast-tracked a number of rulemakings that now threaten the ability of public water systems (PWS) to deliver reliable, safe, and affordable drinking water and sewer services to its customers. Put simply, these actions will further exacerbate the water affordability challenges already being felt across much of the country, while failing to result in measurable public health benefits.”

Therefore the conference urged the EPA “to reconsider its position” on the following recent rulemakings, as well as providing some reasons for the need to reconsider each:

1. Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI): The total estimated cost of the regulation (over $100 billion) combined with the ten year deadline to remove all lead pipes, sets an unachievable goal for local governments to meet. Current LCRI policy forces local governments to shift limited resources to fund federal mandates.

2. PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation and Related Regulatory Action: In setting new drinking water standards for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)  chemicals, EPA vastly underestimated its cost-benefit analysis for local governments, neglected to utilize the best science available to the Agency, and failed to follow proper Administrative procedure.

3. PFAS and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA): Including certain PFAS chemicals as a hazardous waste under CERCLA (also known as the Superfund), exposes local governments, who run water, wastewater, and solid waste systems, to future liability even though they did not create the chemical and are just handling PFAS-laden materials as part of their municipal duties.

In addition to the conference’s requests related to the executive order, the conference further urges the EPA “reconsider its current position on the Financial Capability Assessment Guidance,” issued in February 2023. “A previous version, developed in the closing months of President Trump’s first term, was much more flexible and useful to local governments and we would welcome you to revisit this version,” the letter says.

Because PFAS chemicals can build up in living things and cause various health issues, during 2024 the EPA took action on those chemicals including issuing a final rule that sets drinking water standards for five individual PFAS substances, including PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA, as well as issuing a second PFAS rule designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances.

CERCLA was enacted in 1980 to address hazardous waste sites and spills, and provides the EPA with authority to investigate and clean up contaminated sites.

Concerning the PFAS provisions in the letter, Judy Sheahan, the conference’s assistant executive director for the environment, told The Driller the conference believes “it was a mistake” for the EPA to set in the rule—issued in April 2024—PFAS’ contamination levels in drinking water at “four parts per trillion,” which Sheahan said is “detection levels.”

The conference wanted the EPA “to collect more science and really figure out what we’re dealing with first,” and then implement “a two tiered system” that starts with “10 parts per trillion,” and then drops to detection levels, Sheahan said.

Part of the reason for the conference’s position on the PFAS regulation is because water, wastewater, and solid waste are all managed by local government and “all those things can have PFAS in it,” Sheahan said. Furthermore, filters designed to remove PFAS “will all be contaminated with PFAS, so where do they go?” Facilities where PFAS filters are disposed of could become future Super Fund sites, but EPA has “reassured us,” they are “not planning on going after” the managers of such facilities, she said.

In addition, the conference asked EPA to revisit the LCRI regulation based on the costs to PWSs to comply with the LCRI, which is estimated to be between $2.9 billion and $4.8 billion, as well as the costs to consumers, which is estimated to be from $4,000 to $7,000, but can surpass $10,000 to replace a single lead service line (LSL).

The conference cites the EPA’s 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment that estimates there are approximately 9.2 million LSLs across the country, making the total cost for LSL replacement to be from $90 billion to $100 billion.