May 2025 Vol. 80 No. 5
Editor's Log
Editor’s Log: Easy come, easy go
By Robert Carpenter, Editor-in-Chief
(UI) — As a country, we’ve had a pretty good run at increased spending on sewer, water and stormwater over the past few years. Some would call it a well-timed renewal in interest and investment in those underground infrastructure systems.
Renewed local and state financial contributions to addressing overwhelming system needs have gone a lot further towards solving problems than previous lip service and passing the buck to the federal government. There has been renewed attention to water lines due to the well-document string of disasters causing the Flint, Mich., water crisis, and, subsequently, the “great lead scare” ever since. Renewed public focus across the country has developed about health issues from poorly maintained or overworked sewer and water systems, many that had outlived their effective service life.
All these focuses and more have played a part in the current strong sewer and water markets. But perhaps nothing has stirred up interest – and spending – more than the famous Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), signed into law on Nov. 15, 2021. The bill included allocations for sewer, water and lead pipe remediation and replacement. Spending was earmarked for state, local and tribal organizations and communities, totaling more than $100 billion spread out over five years, ending in 2026.
With the distribution of those billions kicking off primarily in 2023, many areas have combined these investments with local funds and state incentives to upgrade and repair systems. Unfortunately, much of the spending had to be applied to a desperate game of playing catch-up with long neglected and overworked piping systems.
Regardless of how or why the funding gift horse has been spent, it has equated to unprecedented projects for the whole of the nation’s sewer and water infrastructure. In theory, billions will continue to be doled out through 2026. So, we’ve had, and will have, a few good years, indeed.
Of course, there always seems to be a downside. As some of our expert columnists have feared, the latest President Trump budget calls for major cuts to existing EPA funding programs for fiscal year 2026, such as a proposed reduction of $2.46 billion from the Clean and Drinking Water SRF.
This reduction is part of a broader budget proposal that aims to cut $4.9 billion from the EPA's budget, which would have a substantial impact on state funding for water infrastructure projects. The cuts are expected to affect states' ability to fund their own water infrastructure projects, potentially leading to reduced funding for lead service line removals and improvements to drinking water and wastewater systems nationwide.
Water utilities are aggressively lobbying Congress to maintain level funding for EPA’s clean water and drinking water SRF programs, but as of press time, have not made much headway. The unfortunate federal perspective now is that since the Fed has been – and continues through 2026 – to bale out cities for their failure to properly maintain and grow their water, sewer and stormwater systems, it is time for states/cities to step up to the plate.
Basically, depending upon how the final federal budget for fiscal 2026 (which is still embroiled in a heavy debate) ends up, the sewer and water industries may become a victim of the funding success of the Infrastructure Bill. The question – without a good answer – is why should the Federal government continue funding local sewer/water problems, especially when local communities have historically failed to budget monies to address their needs and issues, or even start efforts to prevent problems from getting worse?
It’s a legitimate question and one for which industry needs to develop an exceptionally good answer, should the SRFs have a serious shot at being reinstated.
The Infrastructure Bill continues to provide a jump-start to local money shortfalls. But it is nowhere near, nor was it expected to be, a total solution. The IB has been a financial bandaid. Now it’s up to the states and cities to work out the rest of the funding equation.
Comments