The public water crisis nobody seems to care about
The more I see of the budget numbers coming out of Washington, specifically around water funding, the more I fear we are sailing toward a public water crisis at a national level.
This Congress wants to save money now, regardless of longterm costs; that budgets have ballooned and we can and must make savings. For the record, I'm not one to believe every dollar the government receives has been properly spent, but when it comes to water, a compound that is foundational to human life and existence, I find it quite crazy to see how little we want to fund it. I would think that if it is a requirement to live, water would be a higher priority.
Regardless, programs and funding mechanisms are being slashed or cut this year for 2026 as part of this on-going effort to reduce government spending. And it has come knocking on the door of public water systems.
They're cutting the SRFs in more ways than one
The Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) have been the primary federal driver for funding of water projects across the nation for decades now. They offer low interest loans to communities of all sizes (provided that a community can jump through the bureaucratic hoops to apply and receive the funding), and the interest earned from those loans goes back into the pot to pay for future projects.
It is a noble idea, and one that I think many can get behind. We can use the capital spending of today to generate a larger funding pool for tomorrow. Theoretically we'll see a bucket of money large enough to fix our biggest problems in the long run: aging infrastructure, lead pipe replacement, PFAS treatment, emergency preparedness, etc. It's continuous and sustainable.
But in the past few years, I and the editors of WaterWorld, Wastewater Digest and Stormwater Solutions have shared a direct threat to this program, and it is only getting worse.
These earmarks suck and hurt water utilities large and small
That problem is congressionally directed spending, also known as earmarks. Earmarks used to be a common mechanism years ago for funding projects that the SRFs now fund. They had their own line item, separate from the SRF bucket. The difference now: The money used for those earmarks comes out of the SRF bucket. It's not that earmarks are the problem. It's that these earmarks as they've been reimaginged and reintegrated are the problem.
More than a year ago, I wrote an article about this very phenomenon and constructed this image you see below as a means to visualize how it works.
In essence, the idea that a project using SRFs today is helping to fund a project tomorrow or years from now is becoming more and more of a lie. Congress has begun to direct more and more spending with earmarks that undercut the entire program, meaning the pool is getting smaller every year, and the revolving fund simply will cease to revolve. It is unsustainable.
This well will run dry.
Want an even clearer picture of that? If you don't trust me, then take to heart the words of Anthony DeRosa, executive director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, you know, that agency that works directly with the state leaders administering the SRF programs that keep those low interest loans revolving for future generations. Or at least they're doing their best with what they've got now.
ASDWA breaks down the earmark difference
Why then is Congress doing this?
Follow updates to the appropriations movements in Congress with this tool.
In the end it is all political. With the pressure to cut spending, Congressional leaders are finding ways to carve out money for projects in their districts instead. They can use their role in writing laws to direct spending to their district over that of their neighbors.
So when you see them at a ribbon cutting ceremony, they can say "I did this," garner the seratonin-filled applause of their electorate, and happily take their votes into the next election cycle. That's just politics, baby!
And that's not necesssarily a bad thing. I think Congressional leaders should be able to earmark projects in their districts for funding, especially in cases of dire need. Where I take umbrage is with the robbing of Peter to pay Paul mentality they're taking with the SRF program. At what costs are we actually solving the problems of today?
It creates a competitive atmosphere instead of one built on teamwork and collective action. I see a world in which utilities have to lobby Congress to replace their lead pipes or construct or install a PFAS removal system unless they raise rates (which if I'm honest, have not been keeping up with the cost of treatment, but more on that another time).
This competition is emblematic of the political climate of today where we use wedges to get work done instead of joinery. Is it even possible to make Congress and the public see how a drinking water project in the neighboring city funded by SRFs is helping us to pay for our project in five years time? I'm not entirely sure.
But for right now, I do wonder just how long water systems can hobble along underfunded and over-mandated, at the mercy of a Senator or House Representative holding the keys to their future.
About the Author
Bob Crossen
Editorial Director
Bob Crossen is the editorial director for WaterWorld Magazine, Wastewater Digest, Stormwater Solutions, and Water Quality Products, which compose the Endeavor Business Media Water Group. Crossen graduated from Illinois State University in Dec. 2011 with a Bachelor of Arts in German and a Bachelor of Arts in Journalism. He has worked in business-to-business journalism covering the drinking water, wastewater, stormwater and point-of-use/point-of-entry markets since April or 2016. Crossen can be reached at [email protected] or 847.954.7980.