Water

Subscribe to Water via RSS

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has formally withdrawn cybersecurity rules it promulgated in March requiring that states report cybersecurity threats to their public water systems (PWS). The reversal comes in the wake of lawsuits filed in the Eighth Circuit in July by Missouri, Arkansas, and Iowa (the states), along with intervenors American Water Works Association and National Rural Water Association (the water associations). As a result of the withdrawal, the states and water associations filed to dismiss their suits.

Michigan Attorney General (AG) Dana Nessel has filed suit against the Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority to enforce demands by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) related to alleged per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) contamination of the regional drinking water supply caused by the airport authority.

On July 25, Missouri, Arkansas, and Iowa (the states), along with intervenors American Water Works Association and National Rural Water Association (the water associations), petitioned the Eighth Circuit to review the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rule requiring states to review and report cybersecurity threats to their public water systems (PWS).

Public water utilities and 3M have until August 28 to respond to the bipartisan coalition of 22 state attorneys general (AGs) that opposes their proposed $12.5 billion class action settlement over alleged per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) contamination and is seeking to intervene in their litigation.

A bipartisan coalition of attorneys general (AGs) from 22 states is urging the federal district court in South Carolina to reject a proposed $12.5 billion settlement between 3M and a group of public water utilities, who are suing the company over alleged per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) contamination.

A filing in a California federal court indicates that EPA is planning to apply its new Clean Water Act section 401 certification rule to all certification requests, including those that are currently pending and that were submitted in accordance with the 2020 Certification Rule. If EPA attempts to retroactively apply its new rule to pending certification requests, it will guarantee immediate litigation and the challengers will have a strong likelihood of success.

EPA has proposed to establish “baseline” water quality standards that would apply to all Indian reservation waters where the tribe has not received “treatment as a state” (TAS) authority, the state does not have authority, and the federal government has not already promulgated water quality standards. Under the proposal, tribes will have a limited opportunity to request that certain waters be excluded from the federal baseline standards, but that decision will ultimately be made by the EPA regional administrator. If a tribe receives TAS, promulgates its own water quality standards, and obtains EPA approval of those standards, the federal baseline standards would no longer apply.

On March 13, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took the long-anticipated step of proposing maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs), as well as individual maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), for six PFAS compounds under the Safe Drinking Water Act. PFAS are a large family of synthetic chemicals that have been in use since the 1940s. Many PFAS have unique physical and chemical properties that make them highly stable and resistant to degradation in the environment, which is why they are sometimes referred to as “forever chemicals.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) (together the “Agencies”) have continued working on a proposed rule to revise the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA or Act), which will soon move to the next…