The EPA wants to shift monitoring of toxic coal ash to states

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving to shift the oversight of toxic coal ash ponds from federal to state authorities, a change that could significantly alter how these hazardous sites are regulated. Coal ash, the toxic residue left after coal combustion, is stored in large, often unlined lagoons along Georgia’s major rivers, including the Coosa, Chattahoochee, and Ocmulgee. These lagoons contain heavy metals like arsenic and mercury that leach into groundwater and nearby waterways. Since 2015, the EPA has been the primary regulator enforcing cleanup and monitoring requirements, but states have been allowed to take over this role if they meet federal standards. Georgia was among the first states to receive this authority in 2019, and since then, its Environmental Protection Division has approved multiple permits allowing coal ash ponds to remain partly submerged in groundwater despite community opposition. The Trump administration has accelerated efforts to transfer coal ash oversight to more states, approving programs in Oklahoma, Texas, North Dakota, Wyoming, and moving toward approval in Virginia. This shift is part of a broader federal strategy to devolve environmental regulation to states. Critics, including environmental advocates like the Southern Environmental Law Center, warn that state agencies often lack the resources and political independence to rigorously enforce coal ash regulations, especially when utilities are powerful local actors. They argue that this could lead to weaker protections and increased environmental risks. The EPA, however, maintains it retains “backstop authority” to intervene if states fail to uphold federal standards, conducting reviews and enforcing compliance as necessary. This transition raises concerns about the consistency and effectiveness of coal ash management across the country. Coal ash ponds pose significant risks to public health and ecosystems due to their toxic contaminants, and inadequate oversight could exacerbate pollution of water sources. The move to state control reflects ongoing debates about the balance between federal oversight and state autonomy in environmental regulation, with implications for how hazardous waste sites are managed nationwide.