Environmental Groups Sue EPA Over Delays in Testing Nation's Drinking Water Supply
Despite a congressional mandate, environmental groups say the Environmental Protection Agency has not properly reviewed, revised and updated regulations on chemicals and other contaminants in the nation's water supply.
January 30, 2019 at 02:54 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
The Environmental Protection Agency is failing its congressionally-mandated mission to monitor the nation's water supply, a new lawsuit by a trio of environmental groups allege in a new federal lawsuit filed Wednesday.
The Waterkeeper Alliance's filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York claims the agency has shirked responsibilities placed on it by updated federal legislation in 1996 to identify and seek to regulate contaminants in the water supply.
As the complaint notes, while approximately 90 drinking water contaminants are presently regulated under national primary drinking water regulation, since the most recent updates to federal law were passed 23 years ago, the agency's mandated processes for reviewing, recommending and updating its list of contaminants to regulate has led to the revision of only one existing regulation. Not one new chemical has come under regulation since 2000, the complaint claims.
The suit says the EPA, since President Donald Trump took office, has actually reversed progress on regulatory efforts.
In May 2018, under its regulatory power, the EPA announced it was initiating steps to evaluate the need for regulations on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. The chemicals are used to resist grease, water and oil in such things as nonstick cookware coating, water-repellent clothing, and some cosmetics, according to federal officials. The substance has been linked to polluted tap water in a number of communities, including in Hoosick Falls, New York, according to the complaint.
However, earlier this month, EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler reportedly signed off on a decision not to regulate the chemicals under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
“In contrast to the extensive delays in EPA's regulation of drinking water contaminants, the agency acted expeditiously in deciding not to regulate these highly toxic and widespread contaminants under the Act,” the complaint states.
“At the same time the Trump administration is proposing to weaken the Clean Water Act and is actively allowing toxic chemicals to pollute our drinking water, it also is failing to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act, which stops polluted water from reaching our taps,” Waterkeeper Alliance Executive Director Marc Yaggi said in a statement. “EPA is supposed to protect human health and the environment, but its actions and omissions are threatening one precious resource we all need: clean drinking water.”
The 1996 update to federal law required the EPA to conduct a series of actions every five years to identify unregulated chemicals in the water supply, list new candidates for regulations and determine whether at least five unregulated contaminants should be regulated. Every six years, the agency is supposed to review and revise the national primary drinking water regulations when appropriate.
The suit alleges the EPA has not “timely” complied with its mandate and “has not safeguarded public drinking water as Congress intended.” As such, the complaint seeks to have the court force the agency to complete the review or revise its regulations on a host of contaminants, including chromium.
A spokeswoman for the EPA said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
The Waterkeeper Alliance is joined in the suit by its affiliates, Waterkeepers Chesapeake and the California Coastkeeper Alliance. The plaintiffs are represented by private attorney Reed Super.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
- 2Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
- 3Cannabis Took a Hit on Red Wednesday, but Hope Is On the Way
- 4Ben Brafman Defending Celebrity Rabbi in Lawsuit by Miami Hotel
- 5People in the News—Dec. 23, 2024—Barley Snyder, Marshall Dennehey
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250