Here is what happened in the last ten days: The EPA proposed rescinding maximum contaminant levels for PFHxS, PFNA, GenX (HFPO-DA), and PFAS mixtures containing PFBS — four of the six forever chemicals regulated under the Biden-era drinking water rule finalized in April 2024. The agency also proposed extending the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS from 2029 to 2031, with an interim threshold of 12 parts per trillion — three times higher than the enforceable standard of 4 ppt.
Then, rather than defend the rollback on its merits, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. held a press event billing the whole thing as an "explosion in destruction technology." Industry leaders were paraded in to tout their advances in eliminating PFAS from the environment. The message: we don't need drinking water regulations because we'll destroy our way out of the problem.
The Carbon Capture Playbook
If this sounds familiar, it should. Environmental engineer Laura Orlando of Boston University has pointed out the parallel: this is the carbon capture playbook applied to forever chemicals. In both cases, the pitch goes like this — don't restrict the pollutant at the source; invest in expensive, unproven technology to clean it up after the fact. The polluters keep producing. The taxpayers foot the cleanup bill. And the technology never quite works at scale.
Current PFAS destruction methods — from high-temperature incineration to thermal oxidation — often break PFAS compounds into smaller fragments rather than fully eliminating them. Those smaller fragments may be just as toxic as the parent chemical. A 2023 investigation by The Guardian found that air sampling near a Chemours PFAS plant revealed chemicals that regulators' standard tests had missed entirely, despite the company claiming 99.999% destruction efficiency.
Kyla Bennett, a former EPA scientist now with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, put it plainly: "No one has said they can destroy PFAS on a large scale. To say 'we're going to destroy it so we don't need to regulate it' is nonsensical."
The Math Doesn't Work
One study from Minnesota's Pollution Control Agency found that PFAS can be purchased for $50 to $1,000 per pound but costs up to $18 million per pound to remove from water. That is not a typo. These are chemicals engineered over decades to be indestructible — "forever" is not a marketing term, it's a design specification. Roughly 16,000 PFAS compounds exist. They've been found in virtually every recent rainwater sample, in polar bear blood, and in an estimated 99.7% of American blood samples, according to data cited by the EPA itself.
The solution, as public health advocates have said for years, is to turn off the tap: reduce production, restrict use, and hold polluters accountable for contamination already in the ground and water. Destruction technology may have a role in the long run, but it is not a substitute for enforceable standards today.
Meanwhile, in Georgia
While Washington debated destruction timelines, something more tangible was happening closer to home. Residents of Morgan County, Georgia — about 60 miles east of Atlanta — have been reporting brown, sediment-laden water from their private wells since construction began on a massive Meta data center nearby. Videos show murky water being drawn from underground sources that were clean before the project started.
The story made it to Congress. During a House subcommittee hearing this month, EPA water office leader Jessica Kramer committed under oath to investigate whether data center construction has impacted groundwater quality in the area. "Whatever type of construction it is, it's a priority to ensure that water quality standards established by EPA are being met," Kramer said.
This matters for two reasons. First, Morgan County residents are on private wells — the very systems most vulnerable to contamination and least protected by federal regulation. Second, data center construction is booming across rural America, often in communities that lack the political leverage or regulatory infrastructure to push back. When your well goes brown and the nearest public water system is 15 miles away, a congressional hearing doesn't fix your Tuesday morning.
States as the Real Line of Defense
The most important development this month may be the quietest one. While federal standards are being loosened, states are accelerating in the opposite direction. According to Safer States, at least 15 major state laws and regulations targeting toxic chemicals took effect in 2026, providing new protections to more than 62 million Americans. Nine of those 15 policies directly target PFAS. Across 33 states, more than 275 bills addressing toxic chemicals and plastics are under consideration this year.
States like Colorado, Maine, and Minnesota have moved beyond single-chemical approaches to class-based bans — restricting entire families of PFAS in consumer products, textiles, and food packaging. Others are requiring manufacturers to disclose PFAS usage in their supply chains. This is the model that actually works: transparent reporting, upstream restrictions, and polluter accountability.
Nearly 350 state legislators from both parties have signed letters urging Congress not to weaken the Toxic Substances Control Act or strip states of their authority to set stronger standards. That bipartisan signal is worth paying attention to.
One More Number
A House spending bill that passed out of subcommittee last week would cut the two main federal sources of water infrastructure funding by roughly 24 percent in fiscal year 2027. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund would be reduced by 27 percent; the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund by 19 percent. About half of the remaining appropriation would go to earmarks for specific projects rather than into the revolving funds that serve communities nationwide.
To summarize: the federal government is proposing to weaken PFAS standards, delay compliance timelines, promote unproven destruction technology, and cut the infrastructure funding that water systems need to treat contamination. All at the same time.
Where EPR Stands
We believe in solutions that work, not solutions that sound good in a press conference. Destruction research should continue — it may eventually contribute to the toolkit. But it cannot replace enforceable drinking water standards, and it certainly cannot justify delaying protections for communities already exposed.
We also believe in state leadership. The patchwork is messy, but it's moving in the right direction. States that set strong standards aren't just protecting their own residents — they're reshaping national markets by forcing manufacturers to reformulate products and clean up supply chains.
And we believe that private well owners — like those families in Morgan County — deserve better than a promise to "look into it." Rural groundwater is not a secondary concern. It's someone's kitchen faucet.
The public comment period on the PFAS rescission proposal is open through July 20. Submit comments at regulations.gov under docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2025-1742. This is one of those moments where the comment actually matters.