This was a week that moved the needle on drinking water protection in the United States and abroad. Three developments—spanning federal action, European regulation, and grassroots resistance—paint a picture of where we are and where we need to go.
EPA Adds Microplastics and Pharmaceuticals to the Contaminant Candidate List
On April 2, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that microplastics and pharmaceuticals will be added to EPA's draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 6) for the first time in the program's history. The list also includes PFAS and disinfection byproducts, along with 75 individual chemicals and nine microbes.
This matters because the CCL is the pipeline for future drinking water regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Getting on the list unlocks research funding, data collection, and the possibility of enforceable standards down the road. EPA is also releasing human health benchmarks for 374 pharmaceuticals—giving states, tribes, and local water systems a tool to assess risk when drug residues show up in their water.
HHS Principal Deputy Chief of Staff Stefanie Spear called microplastics "one of the most pervasive and least understood environmental health challenges we face." Kennedy announced STOMP—the Systematic Targeting of Microplastics program—a $144 million national effort to measure, understand, and remove microplastics from the human body.
Let's be honest about what this is and isn't. As University of Arkansas environmental engineer Julian Fairey pointed out, the CCL is something EPA is required to update every five years. Listing a contaminant doesn't mean regulating it. But the elevation of microplastics and pharmaceuticals to priority contaminant groups—not just individual chemicals but entire categories—signals a shift in how seriously the federal government is treating these threats. That's progress worth acknowledging.
The 60-day public comment period is now open. If you care about what's in your water, this is the time to make your voice heard.
EU Takes a Decisive Step Toward PFAS Restrictions
Across the Atlantic, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) released its scientific committee opinions on March 26, backing a broad restriction on PFAS under the EU's REACH legislation. This has been three years in the making, covering more than 10,000 substances across 15 industrial sectors.
The two committees split on approach. The Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) wants a full ban, warning that any continued use could result in emissions of "hundreds of thousands of tonnes." The Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) supported a ban with targeted exemptions where alternatives don't exist yet and costs to society outweigh the benefits.
Both committees agreed on an 18-month transition period. The SEAC's draft opinion is open for public comment until May 25, 2026, with a final opinion expected by year's end. After that, the European Commission will propose a formal restriction for member states to vote on.
Environmental law organization ClientEarth urged the SEAC to "remain vigilant" on exemptions, arguing that the restriction should incentivize proactive phase-out and safe substitutions rather than letting industries delay indefinitely.
For Americans watching from this side of the Atlantic, the EU's approach is instructive. While we're still adding PFAS to candidate lists, Europe is moving toward binding restrictions on the entire chemical class. The science is the same. The chemicals don't behave differently depending on which continent they're polluting. The difference is political will.
North Carolina Communities Reject a Weak PFAS Plan
In North Carolina, a proposed plan to address PFAS and 1,4-dioxane contamination is drawing fierce opposition from the communities it's supposed to protect. The proposal, under consideration by the state's Environmental Management Commission, would require certain industries and wastewater utilities to monitor discharges and develop reduction plans.
But advocates say it stops short of requiring actual reductions.
"We're not holding the polluters accountable," said Emily Donovan, co-founder of Clean Cape Fear. "The burden should not fall on the communities to clean this up. It should fall on the polluters."
A petition opposing the plan has gathered more than 1,600 signatures. Organizers want regulators to reject the proposal and start over with stricter, health-based standards.
North Carolina has been ground zero for PFAS contamination for years, particularly around the Fayetteville Works facility where Chemours discharged GenX and related compounds into the Cape Fear River. The communities downstream have been fighting for clean water since 2017. They know what weak enforcement looks like—they've lived it.
Monitoring without mandatory reductions is not protection. It's observation. And the people of the Cape Fear region are right to demand more.
The Through Line
These three stories share a common thread: the gap between acknowledging a problem and solving it.
The federal government is acknowledging microplastics and pharmaceuticals as drinking water threats—good. Europe is moving to restrict PFAS at the source—better. And North Carolina communities are demanding that acknowledgment translate into enforceable, health-based standards—essential.
At EPR Foundation, we believe protection means more than listing chemicals on a candidate list or drafting plans that lack teeth. It means setting standards that protect human health, enforcing them consistently, and placing the burden of compliance on polluters—not on the families drinking the water.
The science is clear. The solutions exist. What's needed now is the will to act on both.
Sources: EPA news release (April 2, 2026); USA Today; Chemical & Engineering News / ECHA (March 26, 2026); WRAL News / The PFAS Project Lab (April 2, 2026); ClientEarth statement.