A wave of proposed rule changes affecting clean water for drinking and development during the past week are raising the murky question of whether the state or federal government is more worthy of trust by policymakers and people affected.<\/p>\n
Part of the murkiness is the answer varies depending on specific situations and the person responding, not to mention the political winds — and thus the rules — at both the state and federal levels are subject to further change.<\/p>\n
Advocates of cleaner drinking water won a major victory on Tuesday as the first-ever nationwide standards for “forever chemicals”<\/a> commonly known by the acronym PFAS were proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, setting content levels at a point where they can barely be scientifically detected. Further addressing that issue is a bill by state Sen. Jesse Kiehl, a Juneau Democrat, restricting such chemicals for firefighting purposes that was heard Monday.<\/p>\n Kiehl was also part of a hearing on Friday involving another major proposed shakeup in clean water policy that would have the state take over permitting for wetlands development<\/a> from the federal government. While the PFAS and permitting proposals involve two distinctly different policy areas related to clean water, he cited some common elements and concerns of both such as their cost\/benefit to the state.<\/p>\n “I can articulate to you what we are are getting for the money” by altering the state’s PFAS rules, he said in an interview Friday. On the other hand, with the state’s proposed takeover of wetlands permitting “they couldn’t articulate any value for the cost. The feds pay 100% of it today. What I didn’t hear today is what Alaska is going to get if we pick up the bill.”<\/p>\n Another overlapping element is who’s in power at both levels of government is causing fluctuations in the rules. The state’s clean drinking water standards have varied over the years, for example, whereas at the federal level a different presidential administration in 2025 — specifically a Republican such as Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis replacing Democrat Joe Biden — could result in the new national PFAS standards being overturned the same year they’re scheduled to take effect.<\/p>\n “We didn’t used to see that kind of swing,” Kiehl said.<\/p>\n Adding to the mix of those clean water issues is a revived effort to get Canada to clean up its transboundary mining problems<\/a> that state lawmakers and Alaska Native tribes in Southeast Alaska say are contaminating essential watersheds, which was the subject of much discussion between the parties involved last week. As with the controversy about the state taking over wetlands permitting, there were heated accusations Alaska’s regulatory officials aren’t handing their share of the duties responsibly.<\/p>\n PFAS progress<\/strong><\/p>\n The EPA’s proposal set a limit of four parts per trillion for two types of PFAS compounds, which agency officials say is the lowest level that can be reliably measured and thus enforced. The public has 60 days to comment on the proposal, which the EPA expects to enact by the end of the year.<\/p>\n Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation officials have stated they intend to enact the revised EPA standards when they are officially implemented and will have two years to do so.<\/p>\n “DEC applauds EPA’s leadership on this long-awaited rulemaking,” the state agency declared in a statement<\/a> on its website after the proposed new PFAS rules were released Tuesday. “We are evaluating the impact this may have on Alaskan water systems and the next steps in protecting the health of Alaskans.”<\/p>\n