Idaho Collegian Weighs in on EPA Rulemaking Affecting Rural AmericaEmma ArnsJune 4, 2026
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering new regulatory actions aimed at addressing contaminants such as microplastics, pharmaceuticals, and other emerging pollutants that may find their way into America’s waterways. While protecting water quality is a critical objective, questions remain about how far federal regulators should go, what scientific evidence should drive these pivotal decisions, and how new requirements could affect rural communities that depend on affordable access to water resources. CFACT Collegians recognize that environmental stewardship and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive. That is why CFACT Collegian and Brigham Young University–Idaho student Alex Goodman’s public comment to the EPA raises valuable concerns regarding the real-world impact of broad federal mandates. In his comment, Goodman argues that policymakers should carefully weigh the costs imposed on farmers and local taxpayers while ensuring that regulations are grounded in sound science and informed by state and local governments.
Below is Goodman’s full public comment, standing for a balanced approach to protecting America’s water resources:
“I am writing in full consciousness of the EPA’s proposed action to federally regulate the types of chemicals or contaminants or microplastics that could make their way into our waterways as found in docket EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0946-0039. The more recent formal announcement that these issues are more of a hazard than before should be of major concern to the common household and agriculture oriented areas throughout the United States. These small communities should be of a major concern to the government since they are the driving factor of the economy.
Throughout the midwest groundwater is largely accessible to farmers as they rely on rainfall and underground aquifers to supply their crops. This water is also used to nourish and feed animals. Most people in remote areas don’t necessarily have access to the current information regarding the potential catastrophic effects of consuming dangerous microplastics or pharmaceuticals. The generic pre-regulations stressed by the EPA could impact these hard working individuals. Any regulations stressed by the EPA should take into account the socio-economic aspect of these conditions. Farmers rely on local economic conditions and work hard to provide for their communities, often being hit the hardest when new laws or regulations are introduced. They would pay the biggest price before local communities had the chance to see the real change implemented. The last thing we need is communities to suffer.
This leads to a bigger question of how much of the proposed EPA regulation would be scientifically driven versus the probability of such microplastic actually causing a major health event to a local community. Cancer causing agents, diseases, viruses, among pollution should be the major focus. In a world of empirically driven evidence, given factors like nitrates in the water should be the major focus of any agency before the EPA decides to dive head over heels to force bureaucracy upon local communities that may not be able to make the proper changes without major overhauls of taxes and budgets. In smaller communities that are forced to adapt where there isn’t a major threat of these issues it reflects the paradigm of rules everyone must abide by. If it isn’t necessary then it should be deregulated and delegated to the states to make informed decisions to their own best interests of the taxpayers. This would also include any type of scientific research related to introducing these new chemicals into the water. This is one of the most vital aspects of this process. The EPA simply cannot go unchecked without the common consent of the people. In accordance with this discourse, I would highly encourage the EPA to extend an olive branch to state governments with their scientific vs factual data based on the risk assessment of the areas where there are greater threats of chemical/microplastic dispersion. This sort of delegation would allow local governments to make their own informed decisions. Grant state and local governments a more lenient window to comply with their request since 60 calendar days is a short opportunity to decide a common course of action. It would also grant a broader window to adjust to anticipated economic changes in the case that funding is required to make innovations/changes to adjust to new detection systems. This would forego any anticipated backlash or legal repercussion to an outcome that would benefit both sides. This process needs to be taken very cautiously.
Therefore, the EPA must adhere to these recommendations to ensure that there is no overstep in the process to ensure safety and so that there is no introduction of microplastics into the water supply. Coordination with local agencies and state governments would ensure that these key points would be taken into account. Thus, this also ensures the necessary safeguard against a willing disregard of protecting the vital water supply we cherish so deeply. This will ultimately lead to a better relationship between the EPA and the other groups that have to deal with these future issues.”
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering new regulatory actions aimed at addressing contaminants such as microplastics, pharmaceuticals, and other emerging pollutants that may find their way into America’s waterways. While protecting water quality is a critical objective, questions remain about how far federal regulators should go, what scientific evidence should drive these pivotal decisions, and how new requirements could affect rural communities that depend on affordable access to water resources. CFACT Collegians recognize that environmental stewardship and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive. That is why CFACT Collegian and Brigham Young University–Idaho student Alex Goodman’s public comment to the EPA raises valuable concerns regarding the real-world impact of broad federal mandates. In his comment, Goodman argues that policymakers should carefully weigh the costs imposed on farmers and local taxpayers while ensuring that regulations are grounded in sound science and informed by state and local governments.
Below is Goodman’s full public comment, standing for a balanced approach to protecting America’s water resources:
“I am writing in full consciousness of the EPA’s proposed action to federally regulate the types of chemicals or contaminants or microplastics that could make their way into our waterways as found in docket EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0946-0039. The more recent formal announcement that these issues are more of a hazard than before should be of major concern to the common household and agriculture oriented areas throughout the United States. These small communities should be of a major concern to the government since they are the driving factor of the economy.
Throughout the midwest groundwater is largely accessible to farmers as they rely on rainfall and underground aquifers to supply their crops. This water is also used to nourish and feed animals. Most people in remote areas don’t necessarily have access to the current information regarding the potential catastrophic effects of consuming dangerous microplastics or pharmaceuticals. The generic pre-regulations stressed by the EPA could impact these hard working individuals. Any regulations stressed by the EPA should take into account the socio-economic aspect of these conditions. Farmers rely on local economic conditions and work hard to provide for their communities, often being hit the hardest when new laws or regulations are introduced. They would pay the biggest price before local communities had the chance to see the real change implemented. The last thing we need is communities to suffer.
This leads to a bigger question of how much of the proposed EPA regulation would be scientifically driven versus the probability of such microplastic actually causing a major health event to a local community. Cancer causing agents, diseases, viruses, among pollution should be the major focus. In a world of empirically driven evidence, given factors like nitrates in the water should be the major focus of any agency before the EPA decides to dive head over heels to force bureaucracy upon local communities that may not be able to make the proper changes without major overhauls of taxes and budgets. In smaller communities that are forced to adapt where there isn’t a major threat of these issues it reflects the paradigm of rules everyone must abide by. If it isn’t necessary then it should be deregulated and delegated to the states to make informed decisions to their own best interests of the taxpayers. This would also include any type of scientific research related to introducing these new chemicals into the water. This is one of the most vital aspects of this process. The EPA simply cannot go unchecked without the common consent of the people.
In accordance with this discourse, I would highly encourage the EPA to extend an olive branch to state governments with their scientific vs factual data based on the risk assessment of the areas where there are greater threats of chemical/microplastic dispersion. This sort of delegation would allow local governments to make their own informed decisions. Grant state and local governments a more lenient window to comply with their request since 60 calendar days is a short opportunity to decide a common course of action. It would also grant a broader window to adjust to anticipated economic changes in the case that funding is required to make innovations/changes to adjust to new detection systems. This would forego any anticipated backlash or legal repercussion to an outcome that would benefit both sides. This process needs to be taken very cautiously.
Therefore, the EPA must adhere to these recommendations to ensure that there is no overstep in the process to ensure safety and so that there is no introduction of microplastics into the water supply. Coordination with local agencies and state governments would ensure that these key points would be taken into account. Thus, this also ensures the necessary safeguard against a willing disregard of protecting the vital water supply we cherish so deeply. This will ultimately lead to a better relationship between the EPA and the other groups that have to deal with these future issues.”
CFACT Collegians Anna-Ramsey Watson of Clemson University and Taylor Elliott of Lipscomb University recently brought...
At a college dedicated to environmental science and forestry in a very liberal state, CFACT...
CFACT Collegians are once again stepping into the federal rulemaking process, urging agencies to choose...