EPA limits water pollution control

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is rolling back regulations on water pollution from coal power plant waste that were adopted two years ago. The rules required monitoring leaks from coal ash piles, which may contain mercury, arsenic, or selenium. Although the American Clean Water Act obliges industrial facilities to protect waters from pollution, the effectiveness of enforcement has long been controversial, especially in relation to the coal power sector. However, the withdrawal of these regulations is only one sign of the broader dismantling of environmental protection mechanisms in the United States.

Water pollution from ash pile leaks – one example among many

The regulations introduced in 2024 required power plants to monitor the quality of groundwater affected by leaks. If contamination was detected, they were supposed to pump the water out and then treat the wastewater before discharging it into surface waters. Companies had until the end of 2029 to comply with the new regulations. According to EPA data, seven power plants are already treating pumped wastewater in line with the new rules. However, the problem of uncontrolled leaks likely affects around one hundred facilities. Under the new proposal, wastewater discharged into surface waters would still need to be treated, but power plants would no longer be required to monitor underground leaks.

Environmental and public health specialists point out that groundwater contaminated by leaks from ash piles may ultimately pollute drinking water sources. These pollutants include carcinogenic and neurotoxic substances.

The proposal to abolish mandatory self-monitoring at power plants was presented on May 14 by Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator appointed to the position at the beginning of last year. One of Donald Trump’s first moves after beginning his second presidency was to declare an energy emergency. Since then, this state of emergency has been used as justification for suspending environmental and nature protection regulations. The latest EPA proposal is one such example.

Erosion of environmental law in the United States

Even if the fundamental Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, adopted in the 1960s and 1970s, have not formally been suspended, the system of exemptions means that in many cases they lose effectiveness. Companies linked to the extraction and exploitation of fossil fuels obtain such exemptions particularly easily. However, they are not the only ones that can expect more lenient treatment from the EPA. One of the agency’s first decisions was to withdraw allegations against Denka, whose neoprene plant pollutes the air. Another example is the postponement of restrictions on emissions of forever chemicals, known as PFAS.

The current United States administration views environmental pollution control primarily as a restriction on economic activity and therefore as something contrary to the government’s current policy. Under Zeldin’s leadership, the EPA has stopped presenting emissions as social costs and has instead begun portraying emission reductions as losses for businesses.

Exemptions from regulations apply not only to environmental protection laws, but also to nature conservation. Companies are being exempted from bans resulting from the Endangered Species Act. This applies not only to entities extracting fuels from the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, but also to other industries. Protective buffer zones in protected areas are being reduced. Efforts aimed at restoring river connectivity needed for the return of salmon are also being withdrawn.

Environmental protection and science as elements of politics

The latter issue has not only an environmental but also a social dimension. Until now, such activities were often linked to the involvement of Indigenous communities, which currently does not inspire enthusiasm among the authorities. Many institutions have faced cuts, with departments dealing with social issues being targeted first. The EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice has been abolished.

It should be remembered that, unlike European solutions, where agencies such as the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection, the General Directorate for Environmental Protection, or the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate are executive institutions subordinate to relevant ministries, the United States administration does not have a ministry of the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency therefore also performs this function.

The scientific and research divisions of agencies dealing with the environment are also being weakened, not only within the EPA, but also in institutions responsible for meteorology and forest management. Even before Zeldin’s appointment, the EPA’s entire scientific advisory committee on clean air was dismissed, and in April this year a new scientific advisory board was appointed.

The board includes not only scientists, but also representatives of the chemical industry. Commentators believe this may lead to a further weakening of the agency’s oversight role. However, it should be noted that such a replacement of the scientific board has not occurred for the first time in recent US history.

Opinions are emerging that frequent changes in scientific boards are intended not only to increase the influence of industry representatives, but also to weaken trust in the existence of an objective scientific consensus and reinforce the belief that scientists’ positions are just as politicized as the actions of lobbyists or politicians. The current administration also does not appear interested in strengthening the EPA’s scientific base. In 2024, agency employees published 339 scientific papers, but the decline in the number of publications in the first quarter of this year indicates that by the end of the year there may be fewer than 200.