Combined sewer overflows

On July 4^th, President Donald Trump signed into law the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” or “OBBBA.” Now that OBBBA is law, the focus in Congress turns to funding the government and passing legislation that is required to renew, or “reauthorize,” federal programs in the new fiscal year that starts October 1st.  

On the funding side, the President’s proposed budget recommends deep cuts that would threaten the health of the Great Lakes and the people who depend on them. Congressional Republicans are unlikely to accept the full cuts, as some in their leadership have spoken out against some of the proposals, but important funding is still likely to be scaled back. Among the cuts would be funding to replace dangerous lead pipes, fix leaky pipes, and stop sewage overflows from entering our lakes and people’s homes. 

On the fight to reauthorize key programs, there are some potentially positive signs, though some of the renewed programs may end up with less funding. Programs up for reauthorization cover fisheries management, water infrastructure, managing invasive carp, and on-the-ground restoration projects, from wetland restoration to cleaning up toxic hot spots. 

At the Alliance, we’re following these developments closely and working to ensure that federal programs and policies protect and restore the clean, fresh water of the Great Lakes in a manner that promotes a sustainable economy and environment for Great Lakes residents. 

The administration’s budget proposal threatens the Great Lakes, our public health, and our environment 

The first order of business is Congressional action on the 12 annual spending bills that Congress must enact before the end of September, when the new fiscal year begins and current government funding runs out.    

The FY 2026 President’s Budget that was submitted to Congress this spring proposes sweeping cuts to many federal agencies that significantly reduce domestic discretionary spending. For the Great Lakes, the proposed cuts risk the health of residents who rely upon the lakes as a source of drinking water because the budget proposes to eliminate nearly all of the $3 billion in water infrastructure funding that is provided annually to states. These steep cuts would make it difficult for Great Lakes states to address water infrastructure backlogs, replace lead service lines, address contaminant issues such as PFAS, and provide principal forgiveness for disadvantaged communities that struggle to construct expensive drinking and wastewater infrastructure because they may lack the tax base to do so. These are just a few of the problems with proposing to eliminate nearly $3 billion in annual federal funding that supports water infrastructure needs nationally. Information gathered by the Environmental Protection Agency indicates that the national backlog of water infrastructure needs is growing, not diminishing, over the next 20 years.  

Although Congressional Republicans solidly supported the President in passing OBBBA, Congressional Republicans are unlikely to accept the proposed FY 2026 proposed budget cuts, as key Republicans in leadership positions have spoken out against some of the proposed cuts. As a result, on the House side where the individual appropriations subcommittees have begun to “mark up” the annual spending bills, the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee did not agree with the Administration to eliminate water infrastructure funds to states for both the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (“SRFs”).   

Notwithstanding this opposition to the Administration’s proposal, they did propose significant cuts totaling $661.9 million, or approximately 24%, of the funds for the nation’s primary source of water infrastructure funding. This means that the Great Lakes States will collectively lose $137.1 million. This loss is ameliorated by the fact that some Members of Congress from Great Lakes states pursued “Community Project Funding” where they directed funds from within these large federal appropriations to water infrastructure projects in their districts. If a Member of Congress secured such community-specific funding, the overall loss to their state is less than it would have been. The 24% cut to water infrastructure funding combined with the Community Project Funding would result in the following changes to water infrastructure funding compared to last year: 

Although House Republicans are not fully embracing the Administration’s proposed cuts to water infrastructure funding, SRF funding to states under the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee mark-up is less than last year, which is problematic for the reasons discussed above.

Similarly, Congressional Republicans on the House side are also not accepting the Administration’s proposal to eliminate the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (“NOAA”) Office of Atmospheric Research, which funds numerous research facilities around the country and also in the Great Lakes, including the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (“GLERL”) in Ann Arbor, MI and the related research organization housed there known as the Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research or “CIGLR.” CIGLR is a public-private partnership of 10 research universities throughout the region, non-governmental organizations, and local governmental partners who tackle some of the biggest challenges facing the Great Lakes. These challenges include the monitoring of harmful algal blooms, or “HABs,” which are produced by agricultural runoff. CIGLR monitors HAB outbreaks, which occur during the summer months, to ensure that the Great Lakes drinking water in areas affected by HABs is safe to drink and to protect swimmers and fishermen from the effects of HABs – which can be fatal. Although the details are not yet available, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science marked up its bill this week and proposes to only decrease NOAA’s Office of Atmospheric Research by $257 million, which leaves intact most of these functions. We have yet to determine whether GLERL or CIGLR is fully funded and able to maintain the functions it provides to Great Lakes States. 

On the other side of the Capitol, the Senate has only started its process to develop the 12 annual spending bills and two senior Senators, Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine (who voted against OBBBA) and Interior Appropriations Chair Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, have expressed doubts about supporting the Administration’s proposed cuts. The Senate’s Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science has begun to consider its bill funding NOAA programs, but halted its markup this week where it added back approximately $650 million for NOAA’s Office of Atmospheric Research. No further details are available on the Senate markup as it is not complete, but Senate Republicans are also not fully on board with the Administration’s funding proposals. 

Although there is a great deal of uncertainty over how Congress will resolve its differences with the Administration on the FY 2026 budget, and the Congress must also consider a package of “rescissions” recently proposed by the Administration (canceling prior year spending), it is clear that the House and Senate are unlikely to pass any of the individual spending bills before Congress recesses in August. After Labor Day, Congress will devote its time to issues associated with enacting a budget for FY 2026 that begins on October 1^st. Given this attenuated schedule, it is possible that there will be one or more continuing resolutions for FY 2026 which just extend current levels of annual funding for a period of time. We will closely monitor these developments and let you know how the annual funding process is unfolding. 

Bipartisan support for continuing Great Lakes programs

With respect to other legislative issues affecting the Great Lakes, including reauthorization for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, reauthorization for the Great Lakes Fishery Reauthorization Act, reauthorization for the Clean Water Act’s State Revolving Funds, and the implementation of the Brandon Road Interbasin Project in Joliet, Illinois, that is intended to halt invasive carp from getting into Lake Michigan, there are some positive developments. 

First, President Trump has publicly announced his support for both the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (or “GLRI”) as well as the Brandon Road Project. For GLRI, which the Administration proposes to fund at last year’s enacted level, the bipartisan reauthorization bill, which has been reintroduced in both the House and Senate, has attracted numerous bipartisan cosponsors and is likely to pass during this session of Congress, which ends in 2026. We are working closely with a bipartisan group of Great Lakes Members of Congress to ensure that the bill moves through both the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, passes the House and Senate, and becomes law. 

For the Brandon Road Project, President Trump issued a memorandum earlier this year directing federal agencies to move expeditiously to implement the project. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”), which initiated project construction in late 2024, is doing just that. All contracts for the first phase of project construction are issued, and work is well underway. The Corps is working diligently with its local partners, the States of Illinois and Michigan, to get ready for the next phase of construction (slated to begin in the fall of 2026), which requires an additional transfer of lands from the State of Illinois to the Corps. This land transfer is scheduled to occur before September 2025 so that the Corps may begin site testing and preparation of these lands and remediation of any contamination as necessary. No additional federal funding is needed until FY 2027, and the project is on track thanks to the diligent work of the States of Illinois and Michigan and the Corps. 

Other legislative reauthorizations are moving, with the schedule largely dictated by the Administration’s transition, which is unprecedented in scope in terms of actions that affect federal agency budgets, staffing, regulations and policy, as well as judicial review. At the Alliance, we work to stay on top of these changes and to inform and educate decision-makers on the effects of proposed actions. As another source of good news, the Great Lakes Fishery Research Reauthorization Act just passed the House this week and may now be considered by the Senate. Work is also underway among authorizing staff to prepare for the reauthorization of the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, which must be reauthorized by the end of 2026; we are working that issue as well. 

We will continue working on all these issues as they move through Congress. We are hopeful that the Administration’s support for both GLRI and Brandon Road, and the awareness of how numerous federal programs support the Great Lakes and its people, will result in final actions on funding and legislating that protect the Great Lakes. 

If you have any concerns about proposals and actions in the federal legislative or executive branch that are being considered, we encourage you to contact your Congressional representative to express your views using the action alert below.

The post Critical Months Ahead for the Great Lakes in Congress  appeared first on Alliance for the Great Lakes.

Original Article

News - Alliance for the Great Lakes

News - Alliance for the Great Lakes

https://greatlakes.org/2025/07/critical-months-ahead-for-the-great-lakes-in-congress/

tfazzini

The Trump Administration’s proposed FY 2026 President’s Budget slashes federal non-defense spending and proposes steep cuts to federal programs that protect and restore the Great Lakes and the communities that depend on them.  

The White House proposal to cut federal funding threatens Great Lakes residents, putting their health and economic security at risk by defunding water infrastructure programs, important research and observation programs, and efforts to assist communities overburdened from pollution. At the top of the list is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”), with a proposed overall cut of 55% that would gut key water infrastructure programs that help pay for safe and clean drinking water, and stop sewage overflows, flooding, and basement backups. Also on the chopping block are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (-19%), the Interior Department (including the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and U.S. Geologic Survey, -31%), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (-18%), all of which play key roles in restoring and protecting the Great Lakes through action on the ground and robust scientific research. Taken together, the White House proposal to gut federal funding not only threatens the Great Lakes but also sets up a showdown with Congress, which must decide whether to protect core funding for the programs it created or go along with the President’s proposed deep-cut budget. 

With water infrastructure needs growing, budget drastically cuts funding

Under this budget, U.S. EPA would abdicate a large portion of its federal responsibility and partnership with the states as set forth by Congress in both the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. And it comes at a time when water infrastructure needs are growing fast. Based on its 2023 Drinking Water Needs Information and Assessment Survey and its 2022 Clean Water Needs Survey, U.S. EPA estimates that Great Lakes states need at least $290.3 billion in water infrastructure investment over the next twenty years. Against this need, the proposed budget would decimate federal funding levels for the Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds (“SRFs”) – the primary federal program for funding and financing water infrastructure projects – by nearly 90%. Such cuts threaten to destabilize states and communities struggling to ensure safe drinking water and protections from flooding and sewage. The Great Lakes states would see the following decreases in federal funding for water infrastructure programs: 

While the states have built up funding in their state-administered SRFs since Congress established these programs, the states cannot meet the estimated water infrastructure needs on their own. The proposed budget ignores that federal funding plays key roles in state-administered SRFs. States rely heavily on federal funding to provide principal forgiveness or grant funding to disadvantaged communities that struggle to afford standard awards. States also use federal funding to help pay for staffing and technical assistance to communities, and to supplement repayable loan awards. U.S. EPA plays a key role in administering SRF funding, including assessing infrastructure needs on a regular basis to make sure funding goes to the states proportional to the need, and ensuring drinking water, stormwater, and sanitary system operators comply with standards that keep us and our waters safe. The White House’s blithe explanation that it is returning control of these programs to the states ignores the important federal partnership that has been underway since Congress first established these programs decades ago.  

Cuts threaten programs that protect Great Lakes from algal blooms, invasive species, and more

The administration’s budget also proposes a $1 billion reduction in EPA’s categorical grants. These programs support state efforts to implement Clean Water Act regulations, reduce lead in drinking water, reduce sources of non-point source pollution that fuels harmful algal blooms, assist small and disadvantaged communities struggling to implement water infrastructure programs, and develop a water workforce. Like the proposed reductions to the SRFs, the proposal to nearly eliminate all categorical grants upends important federalism goals for programs Congress established to deal with specific needs. 

As noted above, the budget also includes steep cuts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Interior Department (the Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geologic Survey and the National Park Service), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These cuts threaten the restoration of the Great Lakes by decreasing our ability to conduct scientific investigations, address runoff pollution and harmful algal blooms that threaten our drinking water, control invasive species to protect our fisheries, and protect national parks in the region. 

The cuts in the administration’s proposal would threaten the quality of the drinking water relied on by more than 30 million Americans in the Great Lakes region. The cuts would defer and delay action to stop sewage backups into homes and surface waters, replace failing septic systems, and solve chronic flooding. Access to safe and clean drinking water and freedom from flooding and sewage impacts are basic needs that should be guaranteed to all citizens and communities across the Great Lakes. 

Will Congress agree to such steep cuts?

The big question is whether Congress will agree to such steep reductions. The answer is unclear and, in some cases, such as the proposed $3.4 billion proposed cuts to water infrastructure programs, the answer may be a hard no. 

Just last week, in a display of bipartisan unity, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, under the leadership of Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), held its first hearing on water infrastructure funding with the goal of finalizing a bipartisan water infrastructure package that would reauthorize both the Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds, as well as other water infrastructure grant programs like the Water Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act program. Sen. Capito, who played a leading role in negotiating the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA) with its $50 billion investment in water infrastructure, extolled the federalism virtues of the SRFs and the important role they played in assisting states with meeting their water infrastructure needs and providing water services to underserved communities. Senator Capito, and the other senators attending the hearing including Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA), Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE) and Senator Angela Alsobooks (D-MD) all praised the IIJA water infrastructure funding, noting the many projects underway in each of their states addressing important community needs, including upgrading treatment facilities, replacing aging systems, supporting the needs of rural and underserved communities, replacing lead service lines, and dealing with contaminants such as PFAS.  

The debate in the reauthorization of water infrastructure programs is not whether there will be the votes to pass the legislation, but how much control to give to states at the expense of federal oversight. These programs are designed to help states meet their obligations – and protect our health – under bedrock federal laws like the Clean Water Act. That is a very important question and one in which the answer has yet to emerge. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will be conducting other hearings on this topic and the House is expected to follow suit later this year. 

In the meantime, the appropriations process is well underway, and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have been working on the FY 2026 budget in anticipation of the start of the fiscal year this October. The Trump Administration’s FY 2026 budget proposal is just that, a proposal, and Congress will be evaluating the steep budget cuts. For our part at the Alliance, we will be meeting with members of the Great Lakes delegations to point out the many problems with the proposed cuts and working hard to ensure that the final budget package passed by the House and Senate protects and restores the Great Lakes. 

The post Trump Budget Proposal Slashes Federal Funding, Threatens the Great Lakes and Sets Up Showdown With Congress   appeared first on Alliance for the Great Lakes.

Original Article

News - Alliance for the Great Lakes

News - Alliance for the Great Lakes

https://greatlakes.org/2025/05/trump-budget-proposal-slashes-federal-funding-threatens-the-great-lakes-and-sets-up-showdown-with-congress/

tfazzini