In 1991, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), a regulation to control lead and copper in drinking water. Since then, the LCR has undergone various revisions, the most recent of which is the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI), finalized in October 2024. It establishes a 10-year deadline for municipalities to identify and replace their lead drinking water pipe. Lead sampling and remediation procedures to further limit lead exposure will also be changed.
The LCRI also requires communities to improve communication so residents are better informed about lead risk in drinking water, lead pipe location and replacement plans.
“There was significant uncertainty at the beginning of the [second] Trump administration regarding the position of the incoming EPA leadership on water quality regulations,” Kenney notes.
The LCRI and the establishment of a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR)—a set of legally enforceable standards and treatment techniques—for several PFAS chemicals were challenged in court by water utility organizations. “The incoming EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and his team were then tasked with determining whether and how to defend the rulemakings in court or, conversely, how to rewrite or replace the rules with new versions,” she explains.
The American Water Works Association (AWWA), on behalf of its members, filed a petition for judicial review of the LCRI.
“We are proud of and encouraged by the tremendous progress water utilities are making to identify lead service lines, share that information with households, and overcome the legal and financial barriers to replacement,” says AWWA CEO David LaFrance. “However, the implementation of the LCRI, in its current form, is not feasible.”
AWWA’s concerns center around the control and access of water pipe on private property, the cost to households in increased water bills, and the feasibility of communities to finance such infrastructure improvements, as well as logistical and personnel challenges.
Zeldin, a former US congressman from New York, was a “vocal supporter of addressing PFAS contamination during his time in Congress, and members of his core team have been at the forefront of policy efforts to improve water quality protections,” Kenney adds. “Therefore, despite the broader mission of the Trump administration to cut regulations viewed as unnecessary or burdensome, a complete overhaul of these water quality regulations was not a strong likelihood.”
The Trump administration announced it will defend the LCRI in court and that the EPA would develop “new tools and information” to support implementation efforts. Specific details have not yet been released.
In July 2025, Congress reintroduced the Healthy H2O Bill (S. 2436/H.R. 4721), a key piece of bipartisan legislation supported by WQA. It establishes a grant program through the US Department of Agriculture to assist rural communities with testing and treatment for drinking water.
‘Forever Chemicals’ Need to Go
Another contaminant has made its way into our drinking water: per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These synthetic “forever chemicals” are used in many industrial and consumer product applications, including nonstick cookware and firefighting foams.
“The presence of PFAS compounds in source water and drinking water is of increasing public concern due to their widespread use and environmental persistence,” AWWA notes.
PFAS break down very slowly and can build up in people, animals and the environment over time, the EPA explains. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to decreased fertility, developmental effects or delays in children, increased risk of some cancers, the immune system’s reduced ability to fight infection, interference with the body’s natural hormones, and increased cholesterol levels or risk of obesity.
The NPDWR (see above) was established to address this issue.
WQA’s Kenney explains: “The initial spring 2024 rulemaking established the NPDWR, including a maximum contaminant level of four parts per trillion, for six PFAS contaminants. For two of these contaminants—perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid—the core components of the regulation will be maintained, while a new rulemaking will be developed to provide two additional years for utilities to comply with the regulations and to establish a federal exemption framework.”
AWWA and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies filed a petition for judicial review in June 2025 of the EPA’s Final PFAS Drinking Water Rule. Their concern stems from the belief that the “EPA did not rely on the best available science and the most recent occurrence data and used novel approaches as the basis for portions of the rule. The petitioners believe the rule underestimates nationwide costs and adds to affordability challenges without achieving the public health outcomes we all seek.”
The EPA has stated its intent to withdraw and reconsider regulations for the remaining four contaminants covered in the NPDWR: PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (Hexafluoropropylene Oxide Dimer Acid, one of the so-called “GenX” chemicals) and the Hazard Index mixture.