Hacker News Reader

Comment by he0001 | Hacker News Reader

Does anyone know why this is done? What is the reasoning here? Is this defendable in any way?

Any new regulation the EPA introduces results in litigation. Some of the previously introduced PFAS regulations weren't done in accordance with how the Safe Drinking Water Act says they should be (regulations were introduced without the necessary public consultation), so they're applying to partially vacate the previous ruling. Notably, they're _not_ applying to vacate the regulation of PFAS chemicals where they say the process was followed correctly.

So, the legal reasoning might be to cut their losses litigating to defend rulings they think they'll lose due to the administrative error. I also suspect that being seen to roll back some regulations likely gives Lee Zeldin (the EPA admin) some political room to maneuver. He's historically be associated with anti-PFAS efforts (in Congress he represented a district with contamination problems and he voted for anti-PFAS legislation), but he's also part of an administration with a strong anti-regulation agenda, so he needs to walk a fine line.

Thanks for this balanced take. This makes more sense.

There's a lot of outrage inducing judicial rulings that boil down to poor rule following. The main question winds up being: do we get to a good end point eventually or do these rulings look like steps backwards?

> So, the legal reasoning might be to cut their losses litigating to defend rulings they think they'll lose due to the administrative error.

But they didn't start proper administrative procedures to reestablish the regulations, proving that these regulations are being removed on principle, whatever that is, while the "administrative error" is just an excuse.

If you view all this through the lens of the goal of administration being to weaken the US both internally and as a world power, it all comes much more clearly into focus.

Then it can be seen as no longer a disparate collection of seemingly random political, social, and economic moves, but rather as a directed, intentional movement.

> If you view all this through the lens of the goal of administration being to weaken the US both internally and as a world power, it all comes much more clearly into focus.

And why would they want to do that?

Bonus challenge: Without relying on antisemetic tropes

just purely as a thought experiment and devil's advocacy: to create new avenues of growth and control for the oligarchy. The fall of the Soviet Union, for example, turned out to be a boon for them and they were able to replace the politburo with their own fiefdoms. By destroying the US goverment functions they will be able to privatize the profits (for their companies) and socialize the costs (pollution and shitty water) for the rest of the population. The price of clean water will go up and the people that can afford it will buy whatever anti-PFAS tech they're selling (providing growth for their companies), and the poor well...who cares. They will obtain greater leverage with the US government because they will be seen as saviors since the government will have no competent agencies left, including the military. And the government will helplessly cede more and more power over to them.

I think it's a combination of things.

Some people are genuine psychopaths who derive satisfaction from destroying things or by hurting people who don't want them to destroy things.

Others are driven to destroy because they believe that there's some sort of higher purpose to this destruction, either religious or political in nature.

Take a look at the administration's first term and all the involvement and ties (financial, political, etc.) there are to Russia (and Russian-related objectives like Ukraine). It sounds bonkers, but the more you dig in and see how closely tied the relationships have been, and then see how totally soft Trump has been towards Putin/Russia - including direct actions towards Ukraine like removing the long-term diplomats, stopping weapons sales and aid, and recently killing USAID (whose #1 beneficiary was Ukraine) - it all coalesces into a single coherent view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...

Balancing protection against water bills - https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-it-will-keep-...

Well shit, we can really lower water bills by getting rid of all clean water regulations and simply stop water treatment.

Think of the cost savings!

Stricter (but not looser) standards can be imposed on state level. Canada has no binding national drinking water law, they leave it to territories/provinces to decide how to implement guidelines.

Watersheds don't follow political boundaries.

sometimes they do.

the Alberta/British Columbia border is defined by which direction water drains off the mountains

That sounds like the political boundary follows the watershed.

It also doesn't actually refute the actual point they were making.

What if instead we could all collectively agree that access to some amounts of fresh, running water is a fundamental human need? We figure a number, and the first N units are free. Additional units cost money, and perhaps you have two or three usage tiers where heavy users are disincentivized through additional cost.

You calculate the figures such that the higher usage tiers subsidize the costs of the basic needs users.

Or would that be socialism?

I would guess normal corruption. Companies making a profit here simply fund the politicians in power and are getting their kickbacks.

Corruption is normally illegal. There is nothing normal about this legalized form of corruption. It is a core structural failure.

Most elected representatives are too old for this to affect them personally, and nobody else is a real person.

The answer is likely that the treatment is expensive, and most people aren't drinking tap water anyway.

My town completed it's pfas filtering system and water bill costs increased about 25% to cover it. I don't know one person in this town though who doesn't drink filtered water.

That being said, I do still support the filtering.

Is this a regional thing? AFAIK everywhere I’ve lived most people drink tap water. Certainly they cook or make coffee/tea with it. But I’ve been lucky enough to live in places with pretty good tap water.

Only about 25% of Americans drink straight tap water.

https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2022/05/ewg-f...

That's from a non-representative online poll for people already searching the internet for information about whether or not their tap water was safe to drink.

> Those are findings from a recent survey of 2,800 visitors to EWG’s landmark Tap Water Database, updated in late 2021 [...] Although EWG ran the survey for only a few days, responses came from 2,800 people in about 1,580 unique ZIP codes in all 50 states and D.C., and even some from Canada and Mexico.

Here's an article, also from 2021, based on an academic study which suggests "Nearly 60 million Americans don't drink their tap water", which (US population being 331.9M in 2021) would still leave over 80% who do.

[0] https://theconversation.com/nearly-60-million-americans-dont...

Most people low and middle class people I have met my whole life drink unfiltered tap water unless there is a reason not to (safety or particularly foul taste). you might be in a bit of bubble. Not that it matter though as most bottled water is just bottled tap water anyway.

> Not that it matter though as most bottled water is just bottled tap water anyway.

With added microplastics!

I never drink tap water. I cook with it, though, and would still very much like for that to be filtered.

This is the reason. My city is struggling to fix its water supply that was broken over a decade ago (our water supply comes from a temporary system) since FEMA sent our funds to other things under the first trump admin.

They don't want to put the cost on the consumer, but there is no other choice. If our government was smart (it's not) they would make these rules and fund the changes.

[flagged]

Also known as the, "I got mine. F*** you." philosophy. Maximize exploitation in the short run because by the time the long run comes around, they'll already be dead.

It doesn't speak well of their feelings about their own children, but, well, there isn't a lot speaking that well of them in general.

> As for people getting sick and dying, they either don’t care, or they want people to get sick and die.

Healthcare providers and insurance companies are corporations too: you can get rich by treating more people.

Wrt to insurance companies: You can get rich by insuring more people. Treatment is not profitable.

An insurance company CEO was famously shot in broad day light just before he went into a meeting to celebrate his accomplishment of denying people healthcare for his company's profits. Nobody felt bad except other CEOs and the people they directly pay because everyone has a story of the insurance company putting profit over people. They did not get rich by treating more people.

USA HealthCare insurance companies are the _Death Panels_, run by CEO, accounts, and investors, that work to maximize profit over keeping people health. They pay _specialist_ to contradict the actual practicing doctors on why some procedure or medicine is needed.

A firm's sole responsibility is to increase profit and a maximize returns for shareholders. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine

I'd argue the insurance companies prefer to collect premiums and not treat people.

Then you'd be wrong. Insurance companies are limited to the amount they can collect without paying back out.

It's a fixed percentage. That means the more expensive treatment gets, the higher they can raise rates, and the more revenue they get from that fixed percentage.

> Then you'd be wrong. Insurance companies are limited to the amount they can collect without paying back out.

So they go buy the providers and clinics and pharmacies so they can raise the prices and juice that percentage.

This debate style is pretty frustrating to me. Use a talking point for the other side and act like it is why the reason it the decision is made. It really does not lend itself to getting to the root of issues and finding what compromise is.

In my opinion this added nothing to the conversation when in theory the op asked for a real answer.

Ok, what is your counter argument?

Im sorry if you’re naive about life but the Republican Party has shown nothing but contempt for life in general. Ideological coherency is not something they have cared about, hence debating them as if their arguments has any weight whatsoever is not useful.

Whenever they propose something, just ask yourself which lobbyist stands something to gain. That will be a sufficient explanation.

these are fascistic decisions. fascism is well understood, and it is the root of the issue here.

a confused, sickened and desperate population is easier to control and manipulate. end of story.

It's not a debate style, this is the actual explanation.

Do you think you have a better one?

I understand this may look dismissive or blamey, but sometimes (actually a shocking amount) there aren’t equal merits to both sides…

I’ve looked into this a lot and there isn’t any strong argument I’ve seen that this is good for humanity, and let’s not pretend every political action is a sincere attempt to improve the world for all equally.

If you look into all the abuse heaped upon the man who discovered leaded gasoline was bad it helps give context on just how far some people will go for their own profits.

Or the companies selling cigarettes. The only positive is that cigarettes alleviate the stress caused by being addicted to cigarettes.

There is also a social water cooler like aspect. Historically brakes were only provided to those that smoke so people took up smoking so they could get a brake. Some companies still follow this asinine ideology and do not provide brakes to non-smokers.

So without smokers, there wouldn't be any workers rights at all?

(You mean “break”, not “brake”.)

Yes, unable to edit to fix typos.

And no I do not condone smoking. It was to point out system design flaws in the business world.

This nonsense meta comment is pretty frustrating to me. Use a counter argument rather than wringing your hands and whining with no apparent critique other than “I don’t like that this person is being mean”

It's not out of the realm of possibility that one side of a issue is not acting in good faith. If that's the case, compromise isn't really a viable option; trying to work with someone within a system doesn't work if they literally don't support the system itself. Obviously not everyone agrees that's what's happening here, but not everyone agrees with your premise that there's guaranteed to be some reasonable compromise to every possible issue either.

In some ways, you're kind of arguing the same thing but in reverse by claiming that the comment you're responding to isn't being made in good faith. You're certainly entitled to hold that opinion, but only because of the exact same logic that entitles the parent commenter to hold the opinion that they express in the first place (and for what it's worth, I don't think it's actually being made in bad faith; not everyone will agree about where to draw the line, but at least to me it seems like we're long past the point of giving the benefit of the doubt on policies like the one described in TFA).

Take one step backwards. Do cockroaches debate with the boot heel that comes to squish them? The billionaires are not “debating” anything with the “little people”

Well, the facts are that this administration will always, without fail, without a single exception, do the opposite of what has been shown to be good for the US people. This isn't a property of authoritarianism either, no other authoritarian state is so uniformly across the board against science, medicine, and technology.

If you have any other suggestion than the reason they do this is something related to money, please be my guest and volunteer. Because otherwise it is the most baffling and self destructive policy making that has ever been documented in the history of humankind.

Trump's EPA created these PFAS rules. Now re-read your comment and look how politically biased you are so much as to be seen as crazy.

Here is the statement from the organization pushing for this.

It really wasn't hard to find either.

https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/epa-announces-changes-to-...

The first administration had some people acting in good faith even if you disagreed with them. This second term does not.

Giving municipalities more time and money to enact change aligns just fine with what I think most people would call good faith. You just can't please some people, I guess.

It seems like the PFAS rules were set in prior administrations [1]. In fact, even in the article you've linked above, the text states:

> retaining its maximum contaminant levels for PFOA and PFOS but pulling back on its use of a hazard index and regulatory determinations for additional PFAS

Key word being "retaining," indicating the maximum contaminant levels were already in place prior to the change mentioned here. Putting aside allegations of "political bias," can you point to a source which clearly indicates the PFA limits were put in place by the current administration? Would like to learn if I'm wrong.

[1]: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration...

Absolutely.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019- 02/documents/pfas_action_plan_021319_508compliant_1.pdf

Trump's first term. February of 2019. Andrew Wheeler's EPA.

You'll also notice that the document lays out planned action dates bleeding generously into Biden's term, and for which Biden later took credit in the document you shared. This is shameful, and sadly normal presidential behavior, taking credit for their predecessor's wins.

If you'd truly like to learn if you're wrong, it's recommended to seek information that disproves your hypothesis rather than proves it. Both this and the previous article I shared were very easy to find and within the first 2 or 3 results.

> If you'd truly like to learn if you're wrong, it's recommended to seek information that disproves your hypothesis rather than proves it. Both this and the previous article I shared were very easy to find and within the first 2 or 3 results.

Firstly, this is a completely unnecessary comment. My searches were specifically regarding finding the enactment of specific PFA limits. I will acknowledge to not spending that much time looking at it, as you claimed to already have a source and I was curious to see what it was.

But to the point, this document does not outline or set limits on PFAS in drinking water. It's an action plan for measuring and creating limits, but does not itself enforce anything. In fact, every subsequent search I've done has shown that the 2024 Final Rule was the first point at which any limits were put into action.

Quoting directly, the document states that one of the steps being taken is:

> Initiating steps to evaluate the need for a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS);

In other words, it outlines a plan for the research that is used to 1) determine if MCL should be set, and 2) what, if any, it should be set to. Notably, it does it not itself set that limit or come to a conclusion about what it should be.

Further, this research appears to be a continuation of research released in 2016 [1], which was the first time that a guideline (but not a mandate) was set. This would, of course, be prior to Trump's first administration. This is suggested in the document itself, where it outlines that this document is part of a series of actions beginning in 2015/2016, as well as callouts to specific research in the 2016 article linked below.

So the facts seem to show that: 1) The first guideline was set in 2016. It was not a law at this time. 2) Research continued to identify next steps for setting a standard, which were codified and shared in the 2019 article you linked 3) The 2024 Final Rule put a MCL into action for PFAS.

Take from that chain of events what you will, but the initial accusations of "political bias" seem unfounded here.

[1]: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-05/documents/pf...

You've lost sight of the comment I responded to, in which the poster asserts, in so many words, that there can be no explanation for easing any restrictions other than for profit and authoritarianism, etc. Right? Clearly there is an explanation if you search for a few minutes. So I stand by my allegations of bias against that comment specifically.

Here, you've read and revised the approach to the issue. This last comment does not warrant any allegation of bias, and I make none about it.

The bigger picture is that both parties are interested in clean drinking water. I guess that's obvious to me, and I'm shocked that's not obvious to everyone. Look how many people on this thread actually believe that the Trump administration is literally trying to poison them. That's not crazy to you? It is to me.

Fair, but I'd like to clarify that in my comment I had asked specifically for any sources indicating that the PFA limits were put in place by the prior administration, since you had made the claim:

> Trump's EPA created these PFAS rules

Your response was what I perceived to be a snarky comment that if only I had bothered to look, I'd have found the evidence, followed by a link that didn't say what was suggested.

> Look how many people on this thread actually believe that the Trump administration is literally trying to poison them. That's not crazy to you?

The claims made all over the place are insane to me. Yes, I doubt the Trump administration is actually trying to kill me. The world is not as polarizing and extreme as people on the internet want to make it sound like it is. Most people are far more docile in the real world, but the collective hive of the internet exacerbates tension. I have no clue what side of the political aisle you're on, but my guess is we probably agree about more things than we disagree about, if we could detach bullshit labels from it all.

But FWIW, the allegation that I wasn't bothering to learn or see if I'm wrong just raised tension further. I was genuinely trying to determine if the claim was true, the evidence I had found suggested it wasn't, and it seems like it in fact wasn't quite true, but perhaps that wasn't the point you were trying to make anyway.

All fine. My hope is that we can all turn down the tension and hostility a level or two. Might be the only hope we have.

The actual rules went into enforcement in the very early part of Biden's term. They have to go back and forth with Congress, and since it involves the military, drafts would be secret or classified.

You can see, per Congress's orders, Trump's EPA would have authored the rules before Biden's term. They were ordered by the PFAS Action Act of 2019.

So while the rules weren't officially enforced during Trump's term, we can deduce that they were drafted and in motion under Andrew Wheeler's EPA, the same one Biden left in office into 2021!

That is to say, Trump's EPA guy wrote them and saw them into enforcement.

That all really is available from the citation I gave. The date is there. You can Google Wheeler's term. You can see when the rules went into effect. You for sure know rules take time to write.

You really didn't think to ask these questions? Honestly, I don't believe you.

You weren't trying to find that you were wrong like I recommended. You were trying to find that the citation by itself could be dead ended to disprove my point if you simply ceased your search.

Think about it for a few minutes and really be honest with yourself. I'm right, not just about you. That's just normal human behavior.

That's okay, but I don't think it's snarky to assume you're also human.

Trumps first term and his second term are entirely different beasts. His first term, although widely regarded as bad, still had mostly competent people across the board running things. This term is absolute lunacy, with tv show hosts cosplaying as government officials.

The populist wave is global and its causes are complex. But in the case of the US on top of it all, our populists happen to be clowns and morons.

I think the reasonable mind struggles to deal with the current obvious stupidity even within a populist frame, and hunts for a hidden explanation. It’s a lot scarier to believe that the world’s biggest economy and military and nuclear arsenal are somehow in the hands of not just authoritarians, but crooks and morons.

But it’s true. Britain did it too, it happens.

So why do they do it? To play out some idiotic meme-driven culture war, reduced through these people’s small minds to caricature. They don’t think about second order effects, they lack the sophistication for that.

It’s terrifying.

And this is in part why these things are happening.

People will dismiss it as "talking points" or "too ridiculous".

And then they will continue to do it, fully aware that people will just not believe what is happening.

The media would have a much harder time collecting ad dollars if they didn't use strawman arguments and misrepresentation to lock in an audience.

Ask a liberal about conservatives or a conservative about liberals and they have abso-fucking-lutely no idea what the ideals of the other side are. None whatsoever. Thanks silo'd media.

What are the current ideals of so-called conservatives? Being a libertarian who can entertain both left and right approaches to problems, I thought I had a decent handle on where they were coming from. But then they seemingly went bat-shit insane during Covid. I try to appeal to what I thought were some of the underlying values (eg belief in institutions, America as a force for good in the world, individual liberty, slow and measured change), and always get written off like I just don't understand or something. But never any explanation for what I'm actually missing. The best I've been able to come up with is that they've set aside actually living those values in favor of thinking that we need some massive societal cataclysm to get back to a place where those values have more of a draw, but that's clearly not itself conservative.

I think it is just venting, rather than debate. Realistically we’re locked in for about a year and a half of full Republican control of every branch of government before literally anything at all can be changed (and even then the main achievable goal for the midterms would be for Democrats to take the House, right? Which gives them at least some ability to do some oversight, but is pretty limited).

Thanks for calling this out. I share your frustration.

As a non-american it's becoming more and more difficult to tell the two sides apart with all the shit flinging going on.

Ironically, PFAS levels have been found to be higher in wealthy people. People with money own more furniture and clothing with stain resistant treatments, for example.

Also brand new items versus used items. When you buy a used item, someone else has already absorbed the PFAS, and the depreciation for that matter.

I'm not convinced that this is the correct answer. These policies also affect wealthy individuals and wealthy individuals want to be healthy (I assume).

An examination of the individuals in the EPA pushing this change might reveal something. Perhaps it's ideological? I don't know, I'm at a complete loss.

>These policies also affect wealthy individuals and wealthy individuals want to be healthy (I assume).

They get to move to whatever enclave they want and buy expensive RO filters.

Or, they don't believe in science broadly and believe they won't be impacted. If scientists are so smart, why aren't they rich like me and exploiting everyone and everything to the maximum potential profit??

I don't get the environmental poison stuff. These rich people and their families breathe the same air and drink the same water as everyone else. Why would they poison themselves and their families with environmental pollution?

Also, there's likely to be a few years between the policy being enacted and people having health issues, so the chances are that the people pushing for this won't be around to catch the blame.

[flagged]

It's a response to municipality associations' requests. People appear to have forgotten that Trump's EPA created these rules in his first term. Here is a summary directly from the organization pushing for this.

https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/epa-announces-changes-to-...

Trump's EPA introduces new rules: i sleep

Trump's EPA pulls back the rules they themselves introduced: "This is proof Donald Trump is trying to weaken this country"

Yeah. LOL. They aren't even pulling them back, they are delaying them to allow time for municipalities to get funding and come into compliance.

Environmental protection is woke. Real American men drink plastic straight from the bottle.

Look to a better source for some nuance. You may still disagree, and the court might as well, but there is more complexity here than "Trump bad, Zeldin worse, poison everyone".

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/us-seek...

While the reason is not stated, Occam's razor demands we look for the simplest explanation that ties together all actions of this administration.

And that seems to be dismantling the US as a military and technological superpower - a self-inflicted Morgenthau plan, if you will. We are left to speculate why a US government would want to dismantle the US, and who would benefit.

The reason is stated! The source article links to the request they sent to the court, explaining in detail why the EPA is doing this. Perhaps you think they’re not being honest, but Occam’s Razor doesn’t demand that we should spin grand unifying theories of government behavior in preference to evaluating the stated motivations of individual actions.

If you want to know, just look at the list of nations exempt from the current tariffs.

As EU and it's love of regulation demonstrated - you can regulate too much, with harmful effects.

Strangling economic growth also kills, as indirectly as PFAS in drinking water.

Neither "regulate everything" nor "allow everything" is a good idea.

(no opinion about this specific one, I had no motive nor opportunity to build informed opinion on this specific one)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com