Congressional budget negotiators wrangle over water spending

Budget negotiators are working on a congressional spending bill compromise to avoid an Oct. 1 government shutdown; however, the dollars aimed at clean drinking water and water pollution mitigation remain a sticky wicket for both parties, reports Kery Murakami of Route Fifty. "Even under the best-case scenario, Senate Democrats are only pushing to keep funding for two key water programs the same as this year, after President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy agreed to keep spending flat as part of their deal to avoid a default on the nation’s debt in June."

House Republicans seek "to drastically cut the two programs, according to analyses by two separate associations representing state and local water agencies," Murakami reports. "Though the funding would come on top of the separate nearly $4.8 billion for the water programs in the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law, associations representing water agencies say even the Senate’s proposal isn’t nearly enough."

The Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition said, "When cities are living with unsafe drinking water, the federal government needs to be doing more—not less—to ensure access to clean drinking water," reports Lester Graham of Michigan Radio. "The organization criticized a House budget proposal that makes cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency's budget, cuts to funds for water infrastructure and eliminates programs to help communities dealing with pollution threatening water sources."

The U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations' plan "would keep spending at $1.2 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which provides low-interest loans to local water districts to fund clean water projects," Murakami writes. "But the House GOP proposal would send states only a tiny fraction of that, about $62 million, according to the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities, an association representing state water agencies. . . . A separate analysis by the American Business Water Coalition of several local water districts puts the figure at roughly the same amount—$61 million, or 5% of the Senate’s proposal."

Wesley Sydnor, chief of government and public affairs for the Louisville Metropolitan Sewer District, "said cutting the funding would impact ratepayers. . . . [The district] has a $1 billion capital plan over the next five years to replace pumps on the Ohio River that were built in the 1950s and upgrade the district’s largest water treatment plant," Murakami reports. "Should funding for low-interest loans through the programs be cut," Sydnor said, the district have to issue bonds with higher interest rates.