The Rundown
- EPA wants to do away with its 2009 conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health.
- Senate budget bill for the EPA maintains water infrastructure funding, unlike the cuts in the House version.
- GAO finds federal agency use of generative AI is soaring.
- Amid industry lawsuits, EPA will reconsider Biden-era restrictions on PCE, a chemical linked to groundwater contamination and Superfund sites.
- DOE report touts benefits of rising carbon emissions, ignores costs.
- Binational group drafts assessment report on Great Lakes water protection.
And lastly, lawmakers turn their attention to the flood risks of rising groundwater levels in coastal areas.
“As we look out toward this beautiful bay, we know that climate change is going to cause water levels to rise. But there’s more to this challenge. And the truth is, it’s mostly hidden from plain sight, until it’s too late.” – Rep. Kevin Mullin (D-CA) speaking about the risk of groundwater-caused flooding for the Bay Area and other coastal communities. This sort of flooding, which is worsened by rising seas, can stir up toxic chemicals, corrode sewer pipes, and spoil drinking water wells. Mullin introduced a bipartisan bill that would require the U.S. Geological Survey to produce national risk maps for groundwater flooding, with an emphasis on public health and infrastructure.
In context: Hidden Flood Risk for San Francisco Bay Area Communities Lurks Underground
By the Numbers
$2.8 Billion: Funding in the Senate 2026 budget bill for the two funds that support local water infrastructure. The bill was approved by a Senate Appropriations subcommittee and needs a full committee vote. The draft bill would support the state revolving funds for clean water and drinking water at the same level as in 2025 – unlike the House version, which proposes a 25 percent cut.
In context: Will Congress Defy Trump on Water Infrastructure Spending?
News Briefs
Clear and Present Endangerment
The EPA is proposing to eliminate a cornerstone of carbon pollution regulation – the agency’s determination in 2009 that greenhouse gas emissions are a danger to public health.
In the following years the endangerment finding has been the basis for federal action on vehicle and power plant emissions.
The agency’s action 16 years ago was in response to a Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA that required that risk assessment for vehicle emissions.
So why go after the endangerment finding?
Ann Carlson, a UCLA environmental law professor, makes two arguments. Down the road, the move could set up a second look at the Supreme Court, which, given its conservative majority, could invalidate its earlier ruling.
In the short term, eliminating the endangerment finding would get the EPA off the hook for rulemaking.
“If the current finding — that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare — remains in place, even if EPA rolls back all of the Biden climate rules, the agency still has a legal obligation to replace the rules with something,” Carlson wrote. No danger, no need to regulate.
The agency is taking public comments through September 15. Submit them via www.regulations.gov using docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0194.
Chemical Revival?
In the face of chemical industry lawsuits, the EPA is reconsidering Biden-era restrictions on perchloroethylene (PCE), a chemical that shows up at Superfund sites and contaminates groundwater.
In December 2024, the EPA finalized a rule that banned all consumer uses of PCE and set timelines for phasing out most commercial uses, such as dry cleaning.
PCE exposure by inhalation and skin contact has been linked to liver and kidney damage, as well as certain cancers. Once the chemical is in groundwater, it can volatilize and become a noxious vapor.
The industry lawsuits to overturn the rule are consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit under FabriClean Supply and Technical Chemical Company, Inc. v. EPA.
It is one of many actions – by industry as well as the EPA – seeking to overturn or delay chemical regulation, Chemical and Engineering News reports.
The EPA is taking public comments on potential rule revisions. Submit comments by August 29 via www.regulations.gov using docket number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0720.
Studies and Reports
False Positive
Continuing the Trump administration’s rejection of science that interferes with its worldview of increasing fossil fuel production, the Department of Energy released a report that claims carbon emissions are not that bad.
“Climate change is real, and it deserves attention,” wrote Chris Wright, the energy secretary and former natural gas executive. “But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty. As someone who values data, I know that improving the human condition depends on expanding access to reliable, affordable energy. Climate change is a challenge – not a catastrophe.”
The 151-page report is not nearly as comprehensive as consensus scientific appraisals like those carried out by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment. According to Inside Climate News, climate scientists criticized the DOE report as an exercise in working backwards: pick a conclusion then choose a few papers that support it.
One supposed benefit listed in the report is for plant water use. With higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, plants do not have to open their stomata as wide to take in the gas. That allows less water to escape. In theory.
The report neglects regional differences and the real-world effects of extreme heat and drought that can lower crop yields despite increased carbon.
Next Generation AI
Federal agencies have rapidly accelerated their use of generative AI tools like ChatGPT, according to a Government Accountability Office report.
The GAO surveyed 11 agencies on their use of AI and the more-advanced generative AI, which can produce text and images. While AI use cases for these agencies nearly doubled from 2023, generative AI use cases climbed nine-fold.
The report looked at 11 broad ways that agencies use AI. One of these use cases was energy and environment, which means “promoting energy innovation, environmental management, and the safety of energy facilities.”
However, none of the surveyed agencies – which included Interior and the Department of Energy – employed this use case. Most common was using AI for financial and administrative tasks.
Generative AI is powered by massive data centers, which can use enormous quantities of energy and water to fuel and cool their equipment.
PFAS in Drinking Water Cost Assessment
As directed by Congress, the Government Accountability Office evaluated whether the EPA followed proper procedures when assessing the cost of regulating PFAS in drinking water.
The GAO report found that the agency did incorporate feedback from public comments. The report did not assess the validity of the cost estimates themselves.
On the Radar
Draft Great Lakes Water Protection Report
The International Joint Commission, the binational body that oversees waters shared by Canada and the U.S., published a draft report on water withdrawals and consumption within and outside the basin.
The report is akin to a periodic checkup. It assesses progress on water-protection recommendations made in 2015, and offers new suggestions.
Of those new suggestions two stand out.
- The report does not recommend changes to the 2008 Great Lakes Compact, which governs water diversions from the basin.
- It also encourages greater engagement with Indigenous Nations, who did not have a formal role in negotiating the Compact.
- Seeing AI and data centers as “some of the largest threats,” the report recommends that states and provinces evaluate the water impacts of these projects before approving them.
The IJC will hold a public webinar to gather comments. It will be on August 14 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern. Register here.
Send written comments to PWGL@IJC.org by August 31.
Federal Water Tap is a weekly digest spotting trends in U.S. government water policy. To get more water news, follow Circle of Blue on Twitter and sign up for our newsletter.
