As New York makes progress on stopping contamination from long-lasting chemicals known as PFAS, the Environmental Protection Agency is back-tracking on a recent federal regulation that set tighter limits for these chemicals in drinking water.

A drinking fountain at Mount Hope Playground in the Bronx. (Photo by Adi Talwar)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced Wednesday that it plans to rescind and reconsider allowable levels of four long-lasting chemicals, known as PFAS, in drinking water—overturning regulations set by the Biden administration last spring. And utility companies will get a two-year extension to comply with previously-set standards for two other types of PFAS, officials said.

In response, environmental groups are urging Gov. Kathy Hochul to counteract the federal government’s decision by tightening PFAS regulations at home. They want New York’s rules to match the stricter limits set by the Biden administration last year. 

“The Trump administration’s rollback on drinking water standards puts New Yorkers’ well-being and safety at risk,” a spokesperson for the governor said in an email, without commenting on calls to strengthen state rules.

PFAS, often called “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down easily, are commonly used to stain-proof and waterproof goods, including non-stick pans, clothing, menstrual products, cosmetics and firefighting foams. 

But continued exposure to PFAS can lead to health issues, from increasing the risk of certain cancers to immune system deficiencies and developmental delays in children.

In April of last year, the EPA under Biden tightened limits on the amount of PFAS chemicals that can be present in drinking water, and gave utilities until 2029 to comply. To meet the new requirements, public utility water systems would need to inform the public of the level of PFAS measured in their drinking water. If those levels exceed established limits, they need to install filtration technologies to remove the chemicals or find alternative water sources. 

The move was historic as it was the first time the agency had set enforceable limits on PFAS in drinking water. 

But the Trump administration has since extended the compliance deadline for the Biden-era rule for two of the most common PFAS chemicals (PFOA and PFOS) to 2031. And it reconsidered the limits listed in the initial regulation for four other chemicals (PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS). The agency plans to issue a proposed rule for those new limits this fall, and finalize it in the spring of 2026, according to a press release.

“The work to protect Americans from PFAS in drinking water started under the first Trump Administration and will continue under my leadership,” the head of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, said in a statement.

But the environmental community in New York says the decision is detrimental to progress being made to protect communities from these chemicals, which the Empire State has been passing laws to phase out.

“Delay puts people at risk of exposure to contaminants in drinking water and increases their risk for a variety of health problems—plain and simple,” said Shannon Roback, science director at the environmental organization Riverkeeper.

Roback says updating state-level drinking water standards to mirror the EPA’s more protective original proposal could help New York build on its progress in phasing out PFAS contamination altogether.

New York has been phasing out the use of PFAS in certain goods, and passed tight restrictions on their presence in drinking water in 2020. (Photo by Jeanmarie Evelly)

Over the last decade, New York has been steadily tightening regulations against these chemicals and has become, according to experts, a national leader in cracking down on the use of PFAS.

In 2020, New York adopted some of the nation’s lowest drinking water limits for the presence of two of the most common types of PFAS, known as PFOA and PFOS. And the New York State budget approved earlier this month included a ban on the use of PFAS in firefighting gear. 

The PFAS-Free NY Campaign backs at least five additional bills this legislative session to crack down on the use of these chemicals. That includes legislation that would ban PFAS in household goods, one that would get rid of it in menstrual products and another that would regulate its use in cosmetics.

New York already bans these chemicals in certain products: there is one law on the books that prohibits carpets, including artificial turf, from containing PFAS. And there are others that prohibit its use in clothing or apparel, in food packaging and firefighter foam.

“New York has been a leader in addressing PFAS pollution,” said Rob Hayes, senior director of clean water at Environmental Advocates NY. 

Hayes says the rollback on the EPA’s drinking water standards for PFAS won’t impact New York City, where the drinking water currently meets even the more stricter levels set under Biden. 

But at least 1.3 million New York residents will be exposed to PFAS contamination, according to a recent report by the Environmental Working Group. That’s because there are 189 New York water systems—primarily serving residents on Long Island—that don’t meet the standard, the report notes.

Still, Hayes says that relaxing any PFAS rules now could lead New York down a dangerous path, and that tightening drinking water regulations on the state level could guarantee New Yorkers stay protected.

“When the federal government fails us, New York state authorities have to step up to protect us,” Hayes said.

“If the use of PFAS chemicals in products and in manufacturing processes continues, it’s possible that down the line the [city’s] drinking water could become polluted too, and it’s another reason why we have to turn off the tap on these chemicals entirely.”

To reach the reporter behind this story, contact Mariana@citylimits.org. To reach the editor, contact Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

Want to republish this story? Find City Limits’ reprint policy here.

The post After Feds Weaken Drinking Water Standards, NY Environmentalists Call for Tighter Regulations At Home appeared first on City Limits.

Deaths by suicide in Minnesota and across the country have been increasing over the past two decades. However, a new report from the Minnesota Department of Health indicates that for the second consecutive year, the number of suicides in the state has fallen below the peak levels reached in 2022.

The rate of increase may be slowing down, said Stefan Gingerich, senior epidemiologist at the health department who specializes in suicide.

“These patterns do vary by geography, sex, race and age,” Gingerich said.

The 2024 suicide rate in Minnesota was similar to 2023, with an estimated 813 suicides among residents, according to preliminary data from the Minnesota Department of Health.

Men tend to use more lethal methods than women. In 2024, nearly 80% of suicides in the state were men.

“This is a persistent pattern that we see year in and year out,” Gingerich said.

The suicide rate among women increased compared to 2023. Rates for other sexes or gender identities are not available because that information is not included on death certificates, according to the state health department.

The age groups with the highest rates were 50-54 years and 80-84 years. In 2024, teens and younger adults experienced lower suicide rates than in 2023.

“The overall increase in deaths by suicide over the last couple of decades continues to be concerning,” Minnesota Commissioner of Health Dr. Brooke Cunningham said in a statement. “Every death by suicide is a tragedy and can have an ongoing impact on families and communities. Our aim is to help make sure people know suicide is preventable and recovery is possible.”

The 2024 data show that suicide rates in rural areas of Minnesota are significantly higher than those in the Twin Cities and suburban counties, with rural rates being twice as high. The health department has noted that this trend is not new.

Between 2019 and 2023, most rural counties in Minnesota exhibited a suicide rate that was 59% higher than that of the Twin Cities and 46% higher than other urban counties outside the Twin Cities.

Residents of Greater Minnesota face a higher risk of suicide due to elevated rates of firearm ownership, limited access to mental health care, and higher poverty rates compared to urban areas.

In 2024, firearm injuries accounted for 51% of suicide deaths, a percentage higher than in recent years, according to the state health department.

Efforts to prevent suicide in rural areas include providing training for farm and ranch communities, as well as promoting the safe storage of firearms for higher-risk individuals.

The health department’s 2023-2027 State Suicide Prevention Plan supports various prevention efforts, including the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline and enhancing care for suicide and self-harm within health care and behavioral health clinics.

Related Articles

In the Deep South, health care fights echo civil rights battles

Fast action from bystanders can improve cardiac arrest survival. Many don’t know what to do

Pain clinic CEO faced 20 years for making patients ‘human pin cushions.’ He got 18 months

Ramsey County mental health vehicle to provide assessments, resources

FDA OKs first blood test that can help diagnose Alzheimer’s disease

The 988 Lifeline offers free and confidential support for individuals experiencing mental health or emotional distress. In 2024, the Minnesota Lifeline Centers responded to approximately 90,000 contacts, marking a 75% increase from 2023.

State officials said they are monitoring proposed federal funding cuts that could eliminate national and local mental health programs, along with potential reductions to 988 funding.

The Minnesota Department of Agriculture offers a rural mental health program that is free to Minnesota farmers. The number is 833-600-2670 or text FARMSTRESS to 898211.

For help

If you or someone you know is in crisis or needs immediate mental health support, call or text 988 to reach the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.

When you are driving, it only takes one second of taking your eyes off the road and glancing at your phone for a tragedy to happen, law enforcement officials said on the heels of a distracted driving campaign in Minnesota.

“Everybody thinks it will just take a second to look at their phone and it’s no big deal and they’ve done it a hundred times and nothing bad has happened — but we have seen crashes that happen in an instant and not only alters the drivers life but the lives of everyone around them,” said St. Paul Police Cmdr. Jeremy Ellison.

After law enforcement agencies across the state joined together in April to target distracted drivers, more than 6,000 citations were given, according to the state Department of Public Safety’s Office of Traffic Safety.

The St. Paul Police Department gave out 1,326 of those, far more than the agency with the next highest number, the Minnesota State Patrol’s west metro district, which gave out 329.

“We are not out to write tickets, we’re out to save lives. But if drivers won’t take safety seriously, enforcement becomes necessary.” said Mike Hanson, director of the Office of Traffic Safety. “Every time you take your eyes off the road, you’re gambling with your life and the lives of others around you. No text, no call is worth a tragedy.”

In St. Paul, the police department worked to let the public know they were targeting distracted driving by posting videos on their Facebook page to alert the community about their efforts and by discussing the campaign at regularly scheduled community meetings, Ellison said.

During the campaign, St. Paul police placed spotters on the sides of roads looking for drivers using cell phones. When they spotted a distracted driver, they notified officers in squad cars, who pulled the drivers over.

The department also used a special vehicle from the state, a pickup that has cameras on the sides to capture video evidence of drivers using their cell phones, Ellison said.

During the campaign, one driver was stopped twice in 10 minutes for a hands-free cell phone violation.

The 32-year-old man was stopped on April 22 at Seventh Street and Bates Avenue and then seven minutes later cited again at Seventh Street and Payne Avenue, about a mile down the road, Ellison said.

In another instance, while traffic was stopped from congestion, the driver in a vehicle next to a St. Paul law enforcement officer was using her phone. The officer turned on his squad car lights and approached the driver who was still intently looking at her phone. She was startled to see the officer near her and was cited for the hands-free cell phone law.

In March, a 17-year-old was driving down Shepard Road in St. Paul when her phone dinged and she looked down. “In that instant, a pedestrian stepped into the roadway,” Ellison said. “Thankfully it was not a fatality but it had a big impact on her and the pedestrian. She felt terrible that it happened. That’s an example of everything seems to be fine and in an instant you look down and things change and tragedy strikes.”

In 2024, at least 29 fatalities and 137 serious injuries were attributed to distracted driving, state officials said. One in 11 crashes last year were due to distracted driving.

“It’s 100 percent preventable,” Ellison said. “Those text messages and changing the music or using GPS driving in hand, those are all things that can wait or should be done ahead of time before driving. We really need people to put their phones down.”

Minnesota hands-free cell phone law

“Hands-free” means you can’t hold you phone in your hand while driving.

The law allows a driver to use a cell phone to make calls, text, listen to music or podcasts and get directions, but only by voice commands or single-touch activation without holding the phone.

Accessing social media, streaming videos or Googling information on a device while driving are against the law in Minnesota, even in hands-free mode.

Visit HandsFreeMN.org for more information about the law.

Related Articles

States are telling sheriffs whether they can — or can’t — work with ICE

Ely team helps fight northern Minnesota wildfires from the sky

Letters: Preventing landlords from screening tenants is a one-sided view of our housing problem

St. Anthony: 3-year-old hospitalized with reported accidental gunshot wound to head

Trooper accused of producing child porn faces new charges in federal indictment

By KEVIN FREKING, LISA MASCARO and LEAH ASKARINAM, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans narrowly advanced President Donald Trump’s big tax cuts package out of a key committee during a rare Sunday night vote, but just barely, as conservative holdouts are demanding quicker cuts to Medicaid and green energy programs before giving their full support.

Speaker Mike Johnson met with Republican lawmakers shortly before the meeting and acknowledged to reporters that there are still details to “iron out.” He said some changes were being made, but declined to provide details.

It’s all setting up a difficult week ahead for the GOP leadership racing toward a Memorial Day deadline, a week away, to pass the package from the House. The Budget Committee, which just days ago failed to advance the package when four conservative Republicans objected, was able to do so Sunday on a vote of 17-16, with the four hold-outs voting “present” to allow it to move ahead, as talks continue.

“The bill does not yet meet the moment,” said Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, a leader of the House Freedom Caucus, in a social media post immediately after the late-night session. “We can and must do better before we pass the final product.”

The path ahead for Johnson is unclear as he tries to hold his narrow House majority together to pass the president’s top domestic priority of extending the tax breaks while pumping in money for border security and deportations — all while cutting spending.

FILE – Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump dances at a campaign event at the Cobb Energy Performing Arts Centre, Oct. 15, 2024, in Atlanta. (AP Photo/John Bazemore, File)

Republicans criticizing the measure argued that the bill’s new spending and the tax cuts are front-loaded in the bill, while the measures to offset the cost are back-loaded. In particular, they are looking to speed up the new work requirements that Republicans want to enact for able-bodied participants in Medicaid.

Johnson indicated he wants to impose the the work requirements “as soon as possible” but acknowledged it may take states longer to change their systems. Those requirements would not kick in until 2029 under the current bill.

“There will be more details to iron out and several more to take care of,” Johnson, R-La., said outside the hearing room.

“But I’m looking forward to very thoughtful discussions, very productive discussions over the next few days, and I’m absolutely convinced we’re going to get this in final form and pass it.”

More talks are ahead, but Johnson is looking to put the bill on the House floor before the end of the week.

Democrats have decried the cuts Republicans are proposing to Medicaid and food stamps to offset the costs of the tax breaks.

“This spending bill is terrible, and I think the American people know that,” Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., told CNN’s “State of the Union″ on Sunday. “There is nothing wrong with us bringing the government in balance. But there is a problem when that balance comes on the back of working men and women. And that’s what is happening here.”

The first time that Republicans tried advancing the bill out of the House Budget Committee last week, the deficit hawks joined with Democratic lawmakers in voting against reporting the measure to the full House.

Those same four Republicans — Roy and Reps. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma and Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia — cast their “present” votes Sunday.

Related Articles

Trump hopes for ceasefire progress in Russia-Ukraine war in Monday calls with Putin and Zelenskyy

States are telling sheriffs whether they can — or can’t — work with ICE

Letters: More politicians should follow Walz’s lead on money for religious institutions

Walz calls Trump a ‘tyrant’ who is trampling Americans’ rights and violating the rule of law

Joe Soucheray: We pay for that plane. Don’t take the one from Qatar, Donald

Norman pointed to a recent downgrade of the nation’s credit rating in making his arguments for steeper reductions.

“We’ve got a lot more work to do,” Norman said. “We’re excited about what we did. We want to move the bill forward.”

At its core, the sprawling legislative package permanently extends the existing income tax cuts that were approved during Trump’s first term in 2017 and adds temporary new ones that the president campaigned on in 2024, including no taxes on tips, overtime pay and auto loan interest payments. The measure also proposes big spending increases for border security and defense.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, estimates that the House bill is shaping up to add roughly $3.3 trillion to the debt over the next decade.

Johnson is not just having to address the concerns of the deficit hawks in his party. He’s also facing pressure from centrists who will be warily eyeing the proposed changes to Medicaid, food assistance programs and the rolling back of clean energy tax credits. Republican lawmakers from New York and elsewhere are also demanding a much larger state and local tax deduction.

As it stands, the bill proposes tripling what’s currently a $10,000 cap on the state and local tax deduction, increasing it to $30,000 for joint filers with incomes up to $400,000 a year.

Rep. Nick LaLota, one of the New York lawmakers leading the effort to lift the cap, said they have proposed a deduction of $62,000 for single filers and $124,000 for joint filers.

Rep. Jodey Arrington, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, said the bill remained under negotiation.

“Deliberations continue at this very moment,” Arrington said. “They will continue on into the week, and I suspect right up until the time we put this big, beautiful bill on the floor of the House.”

If the bill passes the House this week, it would then move to the Senate, where Republican lawmakers are also eyeing changes that could make final passage in the House more difficult.