The recent filing of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA)’s opening brief in the case against the EPA’s PFAS drinking water regulation marks a significant step in the ongoing debate over the balance between public health protection and the practical implementation of environmental regulations. Let’s take a deep dive into the key arguments presented by the two organizations, explore the broader implications of the PFAS rule, and offer insights into potential avenues for resolution. 

A Closer Look at the AWWA-AMWA Arguments 

At the heart of the AWWA-AMWA statement is a contention that the EPA’s PFAS rule deviated from the established procedures outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act. The organizations argue that the EPA’s accelerated timeline, limited opportunities for public comment, and use of a novel equation for PFAS standards undermine the scientific rigor and transparency required for effective regulation. 

Specifically, the AWWA and AMWA point to the following shortcomings in the EPA’s approach: 

• Truncated Rulemaking Process: The organizations contend that the EPA’s decision to expedite the rulemaking process limited the time available for thorough scientific evaluation and public input. They argue that a more deliberate approach would have allowed for a more comprehensive assessment of the risks posed by PFAS and the potential impacts of the regulation on water utilities and consumers. 

• Curtailed Public Comment: The AWWA and AMWA argue that the EPA did not provide sufficient opportunities for stakeholders to express their concerns and offer alternative approaches. They contend that a more open and transparent process would have allowed for a wider range of perspectives to be considered, potentially leading to a more effective and equitable regulation. 

• Novel Equation for PFAS Standards: The organizations criticize the EPA’s use of a novel equation rather than a clearly defined measurement as a standard for certain PFAS, arguing that this approach lacks scientific precedent and may not accurately reflect the risks posed by these contaminants. They contend that a more established and well-validated approach would have provided greater certainty and confidence in the regulatory standards. 

Implications of the PFAS Rule 

The outcome of the AWWA-AMWA case could have far-reaching implications for both public health and the water industry. If the court upholds the EPA’s rule, it could set a precedent for future regulatory actions, potentially leading to more aggressive and less flexible approaches to addressing emerging contaminants. This could place a significant burden on water utilities, which may struggle to meet the new standards in a timely and cost-effective manner. 

On the other hand, a ruling in favor of the AWWA and AMWA could force the EPA to reconsider its approach and adopt a more deliberative and science-based process. This could lead to more effective and equitable regulations that better balance the need to protect public health with the practical realities of implementation. 

Potential Avenues for Resolution 

Beyond the legal proceedings, there are several potential avenues for resolving the ongoing PFAS controversy. One option is for the EPA to engage in a more collaborative dialogue with stakeholders, including water utilities, environmental groups, and industry representatives, to develop a consensus-based approach to PFAS regulation. This could involve establishing a working group or task force to identify and address the key challenges and opportunities associated with PFAS management. 

Another possibility is for Congress to provide additional guidance or funding to support PFAS research and remediation efforts. By investing in scientific research, Congress could help to improve our understanding of the risks posed by PFAS and develop more effective and efficient mitigation strategies. 

Finally, it is essential to consider the role of technology and innovation in addressing the PFAS challenge. By investing in new technologies for PFAS detection, removal, and destruction, we may be able to develop more effective and sustainable solutions to this pressing environmental issue. 

The AWWA-AMWA statement on the EPA’s PFAS rule highlights the complex challenges associated with regulating emerging contaminants. While the organizations’ arguments raise valid concerns about the EPA’s approach, it is also essential to consider the urgent need to protect public health from the potential risks posed by PFAS. Ultimately, a resolution to this issue will likely require a balance between scientific rigor, public input, and the practical realities of implementing effective environmental regulations.  

SOURCES: AWWA, Water Online 

Tucson just made water use a gatekeeping issue for new industrial development. Its new ordinance requires large-scale users like data centers to submit detailed water conservation plans and reclaimed water strategies before tapping into the city’s supply. While the spotlight is currently on Arizona, the signal this sends is national: Municipalities are starting to draw hard lines around water access. 

This week, Water Treatment 411 dives into what this policy means for water treatment professionals and why your role in shaping, supplying, and supporting these strategies is more critical than ever. 

From Permit Gatekeepers to Water Strategy Partners 

Facilities planning to withdraw large volumes of municipal water are facing new hurdles. Regulators now want to see where the water will go, how much will be used over time, and what measures are in place to minimize waste. But they’re not just asking industrial applicants. They’re implicitly asking you — your treatment engineers, plant managers, and water quality professionals — for the solutions. 

Whether it’s designing for reclaimed water integration, setting up closed-loop recycling for rinse and cooling cycles, or helping clients meet rising disclosure demands, treatment providers are now deeply embedded in the permitting and planning process. 

Why Reuse Isn’t Optional Anymore 

Water reuse has long been good practice. Now, it’s becoming a compliance requirement. In drought-prone or high-growth regions like Arizona, California, and Texas, there’s mounting pressure on municipal systems. Not to mention growing scrutiny on how much water industrial users are drawing. 

Your facility’s ability to treat, recycle, and reallocate water has direct implications for clients’ regulatory standing. This creates opportunities to offer more advanced services, from pretreatment design to decentralized reuse systems, all the way to data reporting support. 

Reclaimed Water Is a Resource, Not a Footnote 

Many cities already offer access to reclaimed water for non-potable industrial use, but uptake remains limited. For water treatment professionals, there’s a clear role in helping industrial clients switch to reclaimed sources, especially for operations like cooling or irrigation that don’t require high-purity water. Supporting this shift requires technical design, pipeline integration, quality monitoring, and, increasingly, regulatory navigation. 

Data Is the Next Utility 

As part of Tucson’s ordinance, industrial applicants must submit detailed usage projections and conservation strategies. This points to a broader shift of cities wanting numbers, forecasts, and measurable outcomes. 

Water treatment facilities are well-positioned to support this demand by offering more than just treatment capacity. Facilities that can provide reliable data on flow rates, recovery percentages, and system efficiencies will become indispensable partners in the development pipeline. 

What This Means for You 

Tucson’s policy reflects a growing trend where municipalities see water as a limited, shared resource and expect industrial development to be both transparent and efficient in how it uses it. For the water treatment industry, this shifts the value proposition from operational support to strategic partnership. 

Expect more involvement in the early phases of project planning. Expect to be consulted not just for what your system can handle, but for how it can prove conservation, enable reuse, and meet long-term sustainability metrics. If your team isn’t already building toward advanced reuse, integrated data systems, and compliance alignment, now’s the time. Before it’s too late. 

SOURCES: Arizona Luminaria, Associated Press 

The re-election of Donald Trump in 2024 brings with it a notable shift in U.S. water policy. As the new administration moves away from sustainability-focused initiatives, water treatment and utility professionals will see a change in infrastructure funding, water quality regulations, climate change policy, and the overall regulatory landscape. Let’s explore how these expected changes will affect various aspects of the water industry. 

Infrastructure: Moving Toward Private Investment 

Under the Biden administration, modernizing water infrastructure was a priority, with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law directing $3.6 billion in 2024 alone toward water systems. This funding supported lead removal, pipeline modernization, and projects aimed at protecting public health. Trump’s administration is likely to reduce federal intervention in water infrastructure, opting instead to encourage state, local, and private investment partnerships. 

For water treatment professionals, this shift means that reliance on federal grants and subsidies for upgrading systems may decrease. Instead, a new focus on private investment may require utilities to engage in public-private partnerships that prioritize economic efficiency. While this market-centered approach could encourage innovation and cost-cutting, it may also lead to fewer projects targeting the underserved, as private investors prioritize quick returns over broad public health initiatives. 

Water Quality: A Deregulatory Agenda 

Water quality protection was a central issue for the Biden administration, which implemented the first national drinking water standards for PFAS and worked to remove lead service lines in vulnerable communities. Conversely, Trump’s approach is likely to reduce federal regulations and oversight. A prime example of this approach is the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which redefined federal protections for smaller streams and wetlands, effectively reducing the scope of the Clean Water Act. 

While reduced federal oversight may temporarily lower compliance costs and ease the regulatory burden for utilities, this change could pose long-term challenges. Water utilities, especially those near deregulated industries, may face increased contamination risks if pollution control standards are relaxed. This means more local governments and utilities may need to take on additional responsibilities to ensure water quality, which could lead to increased costs or pressure to establish local regulations in areas previously protected by federal standards. 

Climate Change: Shifting Responsibility for Resilience 

Climate resilience was an urgent priority for the Biden administration, which allocated billions to prepare water systems for climate-related threats such as floods and droughts. In contrast, Trump’s stance downplays climate change concerns in favor of supporting fossil fuel development and reducing environmental regulation. 

This pivot could leave many water utilities, especially those in vulnerable regions, with limited federal support for climate adaptation projects. Consequently, utilities will likely need to secure alternative funding to adapt infrastructure for extreme weather. Private funding for resilience projects may be challenging to secure, as immediate financial returns are not always evident. Water professionals may also experience uneven climate readiness across regions, with wealthier or urban areas better positioned to fund their adaptation needs than rural or underserved areas. 

Navigating the New Landscape in Water Treatment 

For water treatment professionals, managing operational risk in this new landscape will require adaptive strategies to handle potential contamination or infrastructure deficiencies. Some utilities may benefit from reduced regulatory costs, but others might face heightened exposure to liability if contamination incidents arise from relaxed standards. 

With the water industry shifting from federal to private-sector-driven initiatives, companies that support the water sector will need to adapt. The transition away from federally mandated sustainability initiatives may decrease demand for certain engineering and construction projects, as public contracts for sustainability-focused infrastructure are expected to decline. Instead, the focus may shift to cost-effective, market-driven projects, especially those funded through public-private partnerships. 

For digital solution providers, the decrease in compliance-based demands could impact tools focused solely on regulatory reporting. However, as utilities increasingly prioritize operational efficiency, demand for digital solutions that enhance cost reduction and equipment longevity is likely to persist. 

In the water treatment sector, relaxed water quality standards may reduce the immediate need for advanced treatment technologies. Nonetheless, sectors with high quality standards—such as pharmaceuticals and food production—will still require these technologies, sustaining demand for advanced treatment options in certain applications. 

A Proactive Path Forward 

As the water industry faces regulatory shifts and evolving public expectations, remaining agile and adaptable will be essential. Companies can build resilience by emphasizing data-driven decision-making, adopting technologies that streamline operations, and actively engaging with private investors to secure funding for essential projects. While the short-term outlook may bring some regulatory relief, the industry’s commitment to responsible water management will play a significant role in ensuring the sustainability and quality of U.S. water resources in the long term. 

In the face of anticipated challenges, the water sector has an opportunity to lead by example, demonstrating how innovation and resilience can sustain high standards in an evolving regulatory landscape. By prioritizing adaptability and public health, water utilities and supporting industries can navigate the changing policy environment while continuing to safeguard the nation’s water resources. 

SOURCES: EPA, Resources.org, Smart Water Magazine 

The EPA’s recent $30.7 million grant targeting PFAS response in small and rural communities arrives at a crucial time. With national drinking water standards tightening and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) proving tougher to treat and regulate, smaller systems are at increasing risk of falling behind. For facilities operating under resource constraints, this grant could be a strategic opening to get ahead of a costly compliance curve.  

This week, Water Treatment 411 takes a closer look at how this new grant could support rural PFAS response. 

Why Small Systems Are Uniquely Vulnerable 

Many rural systems operate with a skeleton crew. One operator may handle everything from compliance to maintenance. Adding fuel to the fire, their facilities, often decades old, weren’t designed with PFAS in mind, and the contaminants’ chemical resilience (especially short-chain varieties) demands treatment processes that weren’t even on the radar when these systems were built. 

Treatment retrofits introduce new complexities. Choosing between granular activated carbon, ion exchange, or reverse osmosis isn’t straightforward without solid data. And costs don’t end with installation. There’s also media replacement, pretreatment, disposal, and ongoing operations that require resources that many small systems simply don’t have. 

Tighter future regulations on the horizon will only complicate matters. A system may invest in treatment this year, only to be out of compliance by the time the next rule is finalized. The financial risk of making the wrong call is real. 

What the Grant Actually Covers 

This grant won’t pay for a new treatment plant, but it will help communities understand what they’re up against. Key focus areas include: 

• Sampling and exposure assessment 

Many systems still lack baseline data. The grant supports statistically valid testing to identify contamination sources. 

• Technical assistance and operator training 

This includes education on PFAS-specific treatment challenges, financial planning, and even cybersecurity readiness. 

• Planning support 

This will help systems evaluate treatment options, prepare for future rules, and identify funding mechanisms like state revolving funds. 

• Capacity-building tools 

Grants can support the use of EPA’s Water ICAT to assess and plan infrastructure and compliance efforts. 

The grant essentially funds the homework. It’s not the solution, but it prepares systems to choose the right one before being forced into costly emergency compliance. 

Implications Beyond PFAS 

Though branded as a PFAS initiative, the grant reflects a broader pivot in federal water policy: less emphasis on hardware, more on systemic capacity. The EPA’s direction here suggests future funding will increasingly be tied to demonstrated readiness, planning, and managerial strength. This grant offers a chance to establish that credibility now. 

It’s worth noting that private wells and decentralized systems are also included. That opens the door for rural professionals to lead coordination efforts, even beyond their own system boundaries. Understanding PFAS risk in the broader watershed or aquifer could soon become part of the job description. 

What You Should Be Doing Now  

• Update sampling protocols 

Get a statistically valid PFAS baseline while grant funds are available. 

• Model long-term costs 

Factor in not just installation, but media replacement, waste disposal, and maintenance. 

• Train and cross-train staff 

Use grant-backed training to fill skill gaps and prepare for future treatment needs. 

• Plan funding pathways 

Align projects with state revolving fund cycles or Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) opportunities. 

• Benchmark system readiness 

Tools like Water ICAT can help you map risks, funding needs, and priority upgrades. 

Without the right information, skills, or financial planning, even well-intentioned efforts for PFAS treatment can miss the mark. This EPA grant gives professionals a rare chance to prepare. 

The funds aren’t enough to solve our PFAS crisis outright, but they offer a practical on-ramp to compliance. Use this window wisely. Acting early enables even the smallest communities to be ready. 

SOURCES: EPA, Water World