July 2025 Vol. 80 No. 7
Editor's Log
Editor’s Log: EPA funding cuts put sewer, water infrastructure at risk
By Robert Carpenter, Editor-in-Chief
(UI) — The U.S. House of Representatives made a not-so-surprising move recently, though none-the-less concerning.
The House Appropriations, Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee’s
FY2026 appropriations markup bill slashed spending for the EPA. Notably for the sewer/water markets, the Clean Water Act program was cut 26 percent and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRF) sliced by 20 percent.
None of these cuts are set in stone yet, as work is just beginning on FY2026 spending details. It still must emerge from the committee cycle and be introduced to the full House and finally the appropriations bill passed. Then, the Senate will have to vote on the appropriations bill – so a long way to go yet. But the fact that these two programs are on the chopping block is concerning, as they have consistently been the federal pillars of financial support for the sewer and water market for decades.
Of course, to put things in perspective, the subcommittee is not just picking on the sewer/water/stormwater markets. The entire EPA could see a huge budget cut as the legislature is looking at the agency with jaundiced eye, as being full of unnecessary and counter-business programs, with many roadblocks and inhibitors to economic growth. I don’t think there is much doubt that the EPA has become a bloated – and in some cases, politicized – agency. It probably is time for serious reform and streamlining of its spending habits and programs.
Regrettably, cutbacks in EPA enforcement efforts may even be a welcome relief for a few cities facing scrutiny for failing to meet federal standards for water and sewer systems – they may have dodged a “consent-decree” bullet in the short term. Ultimately, their citizens will pay the price.
That said, until 2021’s Infrastructure Bill pumped tens of billions in concentrated doses into the sewer and water markets, the Clean Water Act and SRFs were the only game in town that provided vital federal financial aid to cities. Spending on those programs has continued even while Infrastructure Bill monies have been distributed. But when the Infrastructure Act ends in 2026, cities will again be turning to those programs for essential monetary support as the only federal game in town. And unfortunately, Infrastructure Bill money has often proven elusive to obtain for small cities. Which is very disappointing; while the monetary need is not as great in a small city, the human need is, perhaps, even greater.
All these developments should not be a shock for anyone who has closely followed the politics of public funding. Our sources have been telling us for a couple of years now that many in the House and Senate were questioning the justification of additional billions in spending on sewer and water needs, while at the same time, the Infrastructure Bill is pumping more than $50 billion into the market in five years.
Notably, one House member observed recently “that at some point we are going to have to say, enough is enough. The country doesn’t have the money for another infrastructure bill. Cities and states need to take on a much more prominent role in attending to their systems – and financing those systems as well.”
After course, depending upon mid-term elections or the next presidential election, sympathy for local communities in terms of increasing federal monetary awards, could return and increase spending back up to 2023 or 2024 levels. But that would still not solve the problems that cities face.
The ugly truth about the finances needed to fully address the U.S. infrastructure problem is staggering. Somewhere between $70 and $120 billion per year for 10 years will be necessary to solve the water, sewer and stormwater mess that our cities have created over the past 200 years. My prediction is that when the Infrastructure Bill funding expires, cities will be back to scrambling for a piece of whatever remains of the Clean Water or SRF annual allotments, which amounts to no more than table scraps in the range of numbers we’re talking about.
Nobody has that kind of money.
Comments