Members of a federal advisory panel are raising serious concerns over the EPA’s proposal to reverse key drinking water protections put in place in 2024. The National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC), which provides input on U.S. drinking water programs, is voicing strong opposition to the EPA’s plan to rescind national limits on several harmful per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and to delay enforcement of existing regulations for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)—chemicals commonly referred to as “forever chemicals.”

During an online NDWAC meeting on July 28, 2025, council members and members of the public weighed in on the EPA’s proposed changes to its PFAS regulations. Tracy Ward, NDWAC’s designated federal officer, said the meeting focused on feedback regarding revisions to the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.

Back on April 10, 2024, the EPA finalized drinking water standards for five PFAS chemicals: PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA (also known as GenX Chemicals). Just days later, on April 19, 2024, the agency issued a second rule designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances, citing links to cancer, immune system disruption, developmental harm in children, and liver and heart effects.

Then, on April 28, 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a series of planned actions to address PFAS. These included naming the EPA as the lead agency for PFAS issues, creating discharge limits for certain PFAS to prevent contamination of drinking water, and working with Congress and industry to hold polluters accountable through a stronger liability framework.

However, just a few weeks later, on May 14, 2025, the EPA said it intended to roll back regulations for PFNA, PFHxS, HFPO-DA (GenX), and the hazard index mixture (which includes those chemicals plus PFBS). The agency also proposed extending the compliance deadlines for PFOA and PFOS, claiming the move is necessary to ensure the process aligns with the Safe Drinking Water Act’s legal framework.

EPA officials have indicated they’re reevaluating the 2024 PFAS rule. Jennifer McLain, director of the EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, told The Driller that the agency is in “an open dialog” with water sector officials to help systems succeed. She said the review aligns with the agency’s daily work and reflects the challenges facing water infrastructure.

Still, many NDWAC members aren’t convinced the changes are justified. At the July 28 meeting, several members criticized the rollback and expressed frustration over the proposed delay in enforcing PFAS standards.

Anthony B. Soaring Eagle Jones, Jr., director of water system operations for the Pechanga Tribal Government in California, called the move “backsliding” and said it damages EPA’s trust relationship with tribal agencies. “There is not enough data available to be able to say that rescinding these chemicals would work one way or the other,” he added.

Alex Rodriguez, president and CEO of Diversity Consulting Group, also spoke out: “I am opposed to this rollback” when California utilities have already made “significant strides” in tackling PFAS.

Kyle Jones of Sacramento questioned whether the EPA had a response to concerns about backsliding. However, he acknowledged that if the original rules weren’t properly developed under federal procedures, “we need to go back and do so.” Still, he expressed worry over the EPA’s “two track approach” for setting maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), saying, “People can’t wait. They’re being impacted. They need to know that their tap water is safe.”

Jones warned that such an approach could leave communities unprepared. “This action today is going to cause a lot more challenges… I’m particularly worried the two track approach is going to address some of the chemicals, but not all of them.”

NDWAC Chair Steven Elmore, program director for drinking water and groundwater in Wisconsin, echoed concerns about public trust. He said undoing regulations or delaying compliance could harm public health and raise legal risks for EPA and the states. “So it begs the question, why would we be taking this action as regulators?” he asked.

Elmore added that some states have already adopted PFAS rules that match federal standards, or are in the process of doing so. Reversing those rules could spark lawsuits. Still, he supported the “hazard index approach,” which allows EPA to regulate PFAS as a group rather than one at a time. “It gets us closer to addressing PFAS as a class of chemicals,” he said.

In addition to council members, 18 members of the public were allowed to speak at the meeting after registering in advance. Many voiced firm opposition to the rollback.

Chelsea McDonald, clean water defense campaign manager at Water Keeper Alliance, said, “Due to the anti-backsliding provision in the Safe Drinking Water Act, it is illegal for EPA to arbitrarily decide to repeal or weaken existing drinking water standards.” She emphasized that any changes must be scientifically and legally justified and should not reduce health protections. “We strongly oppose any attempts to roll back drinking water protections… We also oppose any delay in enforcement of new rules for PFOA and PFOS,” she said.

Betsy Southerland, a former EPA science director and now with the Environmental Protection Network, questioned whether the rollback violates federal law. Referring to the Safe Drinking Water Act, she asked, “If this is indeed backsliding, then how is that going to be permissible?”

Andria Ventura, policy director for Clean Water Action in California, emphasized that the proposed changes are not about debating science. “The regulations are based on extensive scientific analysis,” she said. “They went through comprehensive public comment, including from vested interests… that will benefit if these regulations are delayed or rescinded.”

Ventura said delaying enforcement means millions of Californians will continue to be exposed to dangerous chemicals linked to cancer, immune harm, and developmental damage. “We further oppose rescinding the regulation for the four additional PFAS,” she said, noting that independent research shows these chemicals not only cause harm but can also transform into other toxic PFAS.