Senator Murray Presses EPA Administrator on Agency Siding with Mega Polluters, Plans to Gut Clean Water Funding

05.13.26

ICYMI : Senator Murray on President Trump's FY27 Budget Request

***WATCH : Senator Murray's full questioning***

Washington, D.C. - Today-at a Senate Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee hearing on the FY27 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, pressed Administrator Lee Zeldin on how EPA has been captured by industry and is abandoning its mission to protect families' health.

[ROLLING BACK PFAS REGULATIONS]

Senator Murray began by questioning Administrator Zeldin on EPA's decision to gut PFAS rules and risk the health of all Americans.

MURRAY: Washington state has been a real leader in responding to contamination from PFAS. These are "forever chemicals," and they've been linked to cancer, liver, thyroid problems, fertility issues. They're very widespread, they're very hard to replace, but that has not stopped my state from really working hard to tackle this problem head-on: Washington state, actually, led the way in banning PFAS in food packaging and in firefighting foam.

And, in 2024, EPA actually followed Washington state's lead and set federal drinking water standards for six PFAS chemicals for the first time ever. Last year, you proposed rescinding standards for four of these chemicals, citing "costs" and "flexibility."

Administrator Zeldin, what analysis has EPA conducted on the health cost of rescinding these PFAS drinking water standards? And specifically, what impacts can we expect to see in developmental delays, decreased birth weights, or early puberty for children?

ZELDIN: Well, Senator the extension of PFOA and PFOS for two years, that was primarily based on costs. With regards to the rescission of the four other types of PFAS, that was following litigation because the process under the Safe Drinking Water Act-

MURRAY: That actually wasn't the question I was asking you, I was asking you: what analysis have you done on the health costs-on the health cost, the impact, especially to our kids.

ZELDIN: Okay, I thought you were asking me about the recission of the four.

MURRAY: I'm asking you what the health cost is of that recission.

ZELDIN: Well, so-

MURRAY: Have you done an analysis? Have you looked at it?

ZELDIN: We have extensive-absolutely-we have extensive work going on across the agency on all sorts of aspects regarding PFAS. It's a really long list of work that the agency's involved in-

MURRAY: Well, the reason I ask is because the EPA's own research found that PFAS standards that you gutted could have saved $1.5 billion in avoided health costs.

ZELDIN: It was a legal requirement Senator.

MURRAY: In avoided health costs. We just can't allow for the cost of compliance-

ZELDIN: We have to follow the law.

MURRAY: I'm just telling you what the health cost of this is-

ZELDIN: I agree that there's a health cost.

MURRAY: I believe that it is really important that we make sure we are doing the right thing, that we are protecting children's health-not doing what corporations need-because there is not yet any proven "treatment," you know that, for PFAS. The only solution is keeping it out of water in the first place, and that is the point I'm making as the health impacts.

[EPA PUSHING ANTI-ABORTION AGENDA]

Senator Murray continued by questioning Administrator Zeldin on reports that the EPA expended resources investigating how to track medication abortion in wastewater, an issue fomented by far-right, anti-abortion extremists.

MURRAY: Let me go to another question. Administrator, the anti-abortion activists are pushing this really absurd argument that women who use birth control or self-manage abortions or miscarriages at home somehow pose a risk to our public health and the environment. I am deeply concerned that this radical conspiracy has found an audience at the EPA.

Last October, the New York Times reported that senior EPA officials directed scientists to look into how the federal government could track traces of abortion medication in wastewater. And last year, House Republicans actually included a provision of that in their EPA funding bill.

Are you actually spending taxpayer dollars looking into medication abortion being in the water?

ZELDIN: Unless they're one of the many hundreds of pharmaceuticals on the list of the contaminant candidate list, I'm not aware of the agency doing anything with that.

MURRAY: But do you seriously believe there's abortion in the water, like some of the far-right activists have suggested?

ZELDIN: I have not-you just said, "abortion in the water?"

MURRAY: That's what some far-right activists are saying that they have an audience in the EPA on that absurd issue.

ZELDIN: Yeah, I have not had a conversation with anyone at the agency as far as abortions in water.

MURRAY: And you're not actively pursuing it or don't have groups of people-

ZELDIN: I don't even know what you're talking about.

MURRAY: Well, I'm referring to a New York Times article that reported that senior officials have directed scientists in the EPA to look at this.

ZELDIN: Okay, again, unless you are referring to a pharmaceutical that is on the list of hundreds of pharmaceuticals that are part of the contaminant candidate list six, but aside from that I am not aware of anything else at the agency other than that.

MURRAY: I'm citing a New York Times article and I'm happy to get it to you, but I just have to say this is really crazy. This isn't environmental protection, I hope that there is nothing going on in your agency. This is not science, it's not health care, and it's not the job of the EPA. I just wanted to make that clear.

[EPA RISKING CLEAN DRINKING WATER]

Senator Murray then pressed Administrator Zeldin on why he is seeking to eviscerate the EPA's budget for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, despite EPA's own estimates that dramatically more funding is needed to upgrade and replace essential water infrastructure. The State Revolving Funds face a particularly acute funding cliff, as $5.2 billion in annual funding provided for the two funds in the Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act (IIJA), which supplemented annual appropriations, expires in FY27.

MURRAY: I also wanted to associate the comments of the chair of this committee and Senator Baldwin on the state revolving funds. Cutting them by 90 percent to me is just absurd.

Have you actually talked to water utilities about what sort of price increase that your proposal would cost them and their utility customers?

ZELDIN: Well, Senator we're in touch with thousands of water utilities all the time, all across the entire country about this. But as I pointed out earlier what we don't propose-I'm not opining on the merits of Congressionally Directed Spending and I'm not opining on Congressional Set-Asides-but the account has been getting depleted on grants, not loans, so it has not been revolving. We in our budget do not propose Congressionally Directed Spending, that is something that Congress can decide-

MURRAY: Which I know you took well-part in when you were a member of Congress.

ZELDIN: That was the primary difference between what the president had proposed in FY26 in the final appropriation. The delta is primarily made up of Congressionally Directed Spending, the president is not going to propose, I'm not going to sit here and advocate for it. But what I will advocate for is that when Congress does decide to do Congressionally Directed Spending that my job is to make sure that that money gets out as effectively as possible.

MURRAY: That is different than the 90% cut that you are proposing in your budget.

ZELDIN: Well, that's why your 90% number is misleading, because you're not factoring in what is going to be added to the amount that is proposed in Congressionally Directed Spending.

MURRAY: You're just saying "Congress if you want this, you got to, then each individual senator has to"-

ZELDIN: The president's not asking for your earmarks.

MURRAY: Okay, no, but I'm just saying-

ZELDIN: I don't know how much you want to raid the SRF, that's your, that's something for you to fight for.

MURRAY: What I need you to understand is that the Clean Water revolving funds, the state revolving funds, are absolutely critical to our states.

And you say that there is money hanging out there, I heard your answer on that, the fact is that it actually takes communities and states a lot to design and engineer and put this all together and they have to have the money first in order to do that. And what we do know is because there's a lot of positions that have been eliminated at the EPA, its taking a lot longer for those funds to get out there.

ZELDIN: That's not accurate.

MURRAY: Yes, it is, and so I-

ZELDIN: Absolutely untrue.

MURRAY: I need to make this point because I want to-I agree with the chair, that this is a fund that is critical for our states, and our families just simply cannot afford to make up these funds. This is something I feel really strongly about-and, by the way, our CDS projects are still water projects. We don't raid the water funding to do that.

###