Trump EPA says it will defend tough lead pipe rule from Biden, but details to come
The rule gave cities and towns a 10-year deadline to replace all of their lead pipes and was the strongest overhaul of lead-in-water standards in roughly three decades. Litigation against the rule was on pause so the Trump administration could decide whether it supported the policy. On Tuesday, the agency said it would defend the tough standards.
'At the same time, EPA will develop new tools and information to support practical implementation flexibilities and regulatory clarity. The agency will announce next steps in the coming months,' the agency said.
Lead, a heavy metal once common in products like pipes and paints, is a neurotoxin that can lower IQ scores in children, stunt their development and increase blood pressure in adults. Lead pipes can corrode and contaminate drinking water. The previous Trump administration's rule had looser standards and did not mandate the replacement of all pipes.
Jared Thompson, a senior attorney with the environmental nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council that supports the Biden-era rule, said he doesn't know what the EPA means with terms like 'practical implementation flexibility.'
'The concern is that, are they going to try to use that to create some sort of loopholes that would allow water systems to not fully comply with the rule, or will they actually proceed with full implementation,' he said. 'We just don't know at this point.'
He said he's also concerned with the Trump administration's earlier proposal to significantly cut funding for local water infrastructure. The EPA has said there are programs and resources available to ensure lead pipe replacement projects proceed smoothly and cost-effectively.
The agency asked a D.C. federal appeals court on Monday to resume the case. It wants to file its arguments with the court in early December.
The EPA under President Donald Trump has celebrated deregulation. Officials have sought to slash climate change programs and promote fossil fuel development. On drinking water issues, however, their initial actions have been more nuanced.
In March, for example, the EPA announced plans to partially roll back rules to reduce so-called 'forever chemicals' in drinking water — the other major Biden-era tap water protection. That change, however, sought to keep tough limits for some common PFAS. It also proposed scrapping and reconsidering standards for other types and extending deadlines.
PFAS and lead pipes are both costly threats to safe water. There are roughly 9 million lead pipes providing water to homes and businesses in the United States.
The American Water Works Association, a utility industry association, had challenged the lead rule, saying utilities should not be responsible for the portion of the lead pipe that is on private property. They also described the 10-year deadline as 'not feasible.'
The Biden-era regulation required water systems to ensure that lead concentrations do not exceed an 'action level' of 10 parts per billion, down from 15 parts per billion under the previous standard. If high lead levels are found, water systems must inform the public about ways to protect their health, including the use of water filters, and take action to reduce lead exposure while working to replace all lead pipes.
Lead pipes are most commonly found in older, industrial parts of the country, including major cities such as Chicago, Cleveland, New York, Detroit and Milwaukee. The rule also revises the way lead amounts are measured, which could significantly expand the number of communities found violating the rules.
Water utilities were given three years to prepare before the 10-year timeframe starts. And some cities with a lot of lead will have longer.
The EPA estimated at the time officials issued the stricter standards that they would protect up to 900,000 infants from having low birth weight and avoid up to 1,500 premature deaths a year from heart disease.
The original lead and copper rule for drinking water was enacted by the EPA more than 30 years ago. The rules have significantly reduced lead in tap water but have included loopholes that allowed cities to move slowly when lead levels rose too high.
___
Associated Press writer Matthew Daly contributed from Washington.
___
The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP's environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Congress members trying to see ICE detainees at MDC Brooklyn jail barred from entry
NEW YORK — Officials at MDC Brooklyn barred three Democrat members of Congress from conducting an oversight visit of the jail's ICE detention operation, sparking a brief lockdown that led to cancelled legal visits for inmates seeing their defense lawyers. The Congress members, Reps. Adriano Espaillat, Nydia Velazquez and Dan Goldman, showed up at the notorious Sunset Park jail Wednesday morning, but were blocked at the door, then were briefly trapped between the iron gate in front of the jail and its entrance doors. Inside, about 20 defense attorneys visiting their clients abruptly had those visits cut short, multiple lawyers told the Daily News. Jail staff recalled those inmates back to their housing units, and wouldn't let their lawyers leave the MDC for about a half hour as the drama unfolded outside, the attorneys said. Those lawyers included Marc Agnifilo, who represents Sean 'Diddy' Combs and alleged healthcare CEO killer Luigi Mangione, both of whom are housed in MDC, sources said. Agnifilo did not return messages seeking comment Wednesday. 'We were trapped between the gate and the building,' Velazquez told The News. She said that the lawmakers entered the gate and approached the place's front door, and Espaillat asked a masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent outside to show his face. 'He [the agent] immediately jumped in front of the gate and locked us inside, and then went upstairs, climbed the steps for the federal building and locked the door so we could not get out to the street,' Velazquez said. 'We couldn't get into the building.' New York Immigration Coalition President Murad Awawdeh, who accompanied the lawmakers, said the ICE agent immediately confronted them, asking for ID, then triggered a lockdown and disappeared into the building. 'It was a circus that the federal prison bureau created,' he said. 'Why is the federal government going so far out of its way to prohibit anyone from seeing what's happening inside their facilities?' Eventually, an assistant to the warden came out, 'and he said what we knew he would say, that we have to request seven days in advance for a permit to allow us to go inside,' Velazquez said. That's against federal law, which gives Congress members the right to make unannounced visits, she said. Starting in June, MDC Brooklyn began holding more than 100 ICE detainees as part of an interagency agreement between ICE and and the Bureau of Prisons to use eight federal facilities across the country to hold immigrants ensnared in Donald Trump's mass deportation machine. 'Denying Members of Congress access to a federal detention facility is outrageous and unacceptable,' Espaillat said in a statement later Wednesday. 'MDC Brooklyn has a well-documented record of abuse. ICE should not be allowed to expand its reach through backdoor deals with federal prisons. This contract must be terminated now.' BOP spokeswoman Randilee Giamusso said Wednesday that the prison system would be happy to accommodate Congress member visits if they give advance notice. 'However, as a law enforcement entity, we must prioritize the safety of our staff, inmates and our facilities. We remain committed to working with our congressional partners,' Giamusso said. 'With proper notice, the BOP is happy to accommodate a request for a site visit from any congressional member.' Espaillat and several other Congress members sued the Trump administration last week, arguing that federal law specifically prohibits immigration detention facilities from requiring prior notice before members of Congress can make oversight visits. 'The Trump administration's lawless efforts to defy that constitutional authority are a gross abuse of power,' Goldman said, 'and we're taking them to court in defense of that principle and to find out what they're hiding.' _____
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Library of Congress Website Deleted Part of the Constitution That Trump Doesn't Like. Now They're Calling It a 'Coding Error'
The removed portions of the Constitution include clauses that limit Congress' power to suspend habeas corpus and forbid titles of nobility in the United StatesNEED TO KNOW Portions of the Constitution were deleted from the Library of Congress' website after President Donald Trump ousted the longtime librarian from her role in May The omitted portions of Article I cover limitations on Congress' ability to suspend habeas corpus and grant titles of nobility After internet users noticed the quiet omission, the Library of Congress claimed it was a "coding error"The Library of Congress removed two and a half sections of the Constitution from its website sometime after President Donald Trump ousted the library's longtime leader in May. In recent days, internet users noticed that portions of Article 1 were missing from the Library of Congress' Constitution Annotated website: Sections 9 and 10, and part of Section 8. Article 1 appeared on the site in full at the start of the summer, according to internet archives. On Aug. 6, the Library of Congress insisted that deletion of several clauses in Article 1 were the result of a website "coding error" and ensured the issue would be resolved in a timely manner. But despite the library's statement, some have continued to express suspicion given the timing of the removal and the specific clauses that were cut. Article 1 of the Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government and details the various powers of Congress. Section 9, which focuses on the limitations of Congress' authority, notably includes a clause that Congress cannot suspend habeas corpus — which grants everyone in custody the right to challenge their detention in court — unless necessary for safety in moments of "rebellion or invasion." Trump's White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller told reporters in May that the administration is "actively looking at" suspending habeas corpus, per PBS, amid the government's mass detention and deportation of immigrants. Without habeas corpus, Trump's aggressive deportation program would have fewer roadblocks and move more quickly. Another constitutional clause that was removed from the Library of Congress' website included a line that bars Congress from offering Americans titles of nobility — a limitation that sought to safeguard the United States government from being influenced by European monarchies. During his second term starting in January, Trump has repeatedly referred to himself as a "king" multiple times, including through the White House's official social media. Trump's flirtation with the title inspired the sweeping "No Kings" protests on June 14 — Trump's 79th birthday — in opposition to his perceived abuse and wielding of government power. Meanwhile Section 10 of Article 1, which was also removed, restricts U.S. states from engaging in certain actions that could undermine the federal government's authority. The update to the Library of Congress' digital Constitution came shortly after Trump fired the longtime Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, in May. Hayden was appointed to a 10-year term in the role by former President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate in a 74-18 vote in 2016. At present, it's disputed who is serving as the acting Librarian of Congress. Following the removal of Hayden, Trump appointed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche — his former criminal attorney — to the post, though the library staff chose to recognize Robert Newlen, who was functionally next in line for the job, as their new leader. Read the original article on People
Fast Company
4 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Trump accuses banks of political discrimination. Here's what to know
The White House was preparing to act against banks for allegedly dropping customers for political reasons, as President Donald Trump said he believes that banks, including JPMorgan and Bank of America, had discriminated against him and his supporters. A draft of the executive order, which was reviewed by Reuters, instructs regulators to review banks for 'politicized or unlawful debanking' practices. The order could authorize monetary penalties or other disciplinary measures against violators. It is likely to be announced as early as this week, two industry sources said. The White House had no immediate comment on the reported order. Trump's criticism adds pressure on America's largest lenders, but it also shows how the president's personal slights and business interests are getting reflected in the administration's policies — something that critics say raises issues of conflicts of interest. The sprawling Trump business empire has been placed into a trust, but it is still ultimately owned by the president. An executive order against the banks would come after Trump said in a CNBC interview on Tuesday that the country's top two lenders had previously rejected his deposits. Trump said, without providing evidence, that the banks' refusal to take his deposits indicated that the administration of former President Joe Biden had encouraged regulators to 'destroy Trump.' 'They did discriminate,' Trump said of actions taken by JPMorgan after his first term in office. 'I had hundreds of millions, I had many, many accounts loaded up with cash … and they told me, 'I'm sorry sir, we can't have you. You have 20 days to get out.' 'They totally discriminate against, I think, me maybe even more, but they discriminate against many conservatives,' he said. Trump said he subsequently tried to deposit funds with Bank of America and was also refused, and eventually split the cash. 'I ended up going to small banks all over the place,' he said. 'I was putting $10 million here, $10 million there, did $5 million, $10 million, $12 million,' he said, without naming the lenders. In a statement, JPMorgan did not address the president's specific claims about his account. 'We don't close accounts for political reasons, and we agree with President Trump that regulatory change is desperately needed,' JPMorgan said. 'We commend the White House for addressing this issue and look forward to working with them to get this right.' BofA also did not address Trump's specific claims. 'Reputational risk' issue During Biden's administration, regulators were able to scrutinize banks' decisions on the basis of reputational risks, a source familiar with the matter said. Lenders were under intense scrutiny and pressure to weigh reputational risks when dealing with Trump because of his legal woes, another source familiar with the situation said. JPMorgan continues to have a banking relationship with members of the Trump family that dates back years, and it also banks a number of campaign accounts linked to Trump, the source said. After Trump took power, the Federal Reserve announced in June it was directing its supervisors to no longer consider reputational risk when examining banks, a metric that had been a focus of industry complaints. 'What the White House is doing is telling the banks not to hide behind regulations to deny loans or banking relationships,' said Wells Fargo bank analyst Mike Mayo. 'Banks can use their normal underwriting standards and deny services, but not blame regulators or use reputational risk as a justification.' BofA said it welcomed the administration's efforts to clarify the policies. 'We've provided detailed proposals and will continue to work with the administration and Congress to improve the regulatory framework,' the bank said. Trump in January admonished the CEOs of JPMorgan and BofA for denying services to conservatives. At the time, the two banks denied making banking decisions based on politics. 'Regulatory overreach' Banks have consistently argued that any complaints about 'debanking' should be aimed at regulators, as they argue onerous rules and overzealous bank supervisors can discourage them from engaging in certain activities. 'The heart of the problem is regulatory overreach and supervisory discretion,' the Bank Policy Institute, an industry group, said in a statement. Lenders have held discussions around debanking and weighed scenarios around a potential order, the first source said. Banks are also hopeful the administration may change anti-money laundering laws that they say are outdated and burdensome, the source added.
