The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is making public more than 100 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) records that shed light on how the 50 states and Puerto Rico are managing billions of federal dollars for drinking water infrastructure.
In the 1990s, Congress created the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program, the main federal program funding municipal drinking water infrastructure in the U.S. These funds are distributed by the EPA to the states, and states use these federal funds to support water systems at the local level. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) of 2021 significantly increased federal funding for five years in the EPA’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program. It also increased funding for a similar program intended to fund wastewater infrastructure. The law also funded $15 billion to replace lead service lines, and billions of dollars more to address Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contaminants. (The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is also known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.)
The EPA has called this increase a “once-in-a-generation” infusion of federal resources. According to the EPA, these state revolving funds are the agency’s largest programs, representing 40% of its $28 billion budget during the last fiscal year.
In 2023 and early 2024, the EPA’s 10 regional offices completed reviews intended to assess state government administration of federal drinking water infrastructure funds during fiscal year 2022. (Although Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, POGO generally will refer to states, state governments, and state agencies.)
POGO filed dozens of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to obtain records documenting these reviews. In addition to reports produced by EPA’s regional offices on each state, POGO also obtained checklists completed by these offices that were filled out as part of the agency’s review of each state.
What Can These Documents Tell Us?
The EPA has written that “a key priority of BIL is to ensure that disadvantaged communities benefit equitably from this historic investment in water infrastructure.” POGO took a close look at these EPA regional office reviews for information on whether and how federal drinking water infrastructure funds are making their way to “disadvantaged communities” — generally understood as communities that may financially struggle to afford to pay for water infrastructure. State governments use a variety of definitions for “disadvantaged communities,” and different localities face different drinking water infrastructure challenges.
Several barriers to effective spending emerge from these documents:
In Alaska, the EPA identified a long-term barrier for disadvantaged communities dating back to the late 1990s that resulted from state law limitations on how funds could be used: “Since program inception the Alaska DWSRF [Drinking Water State Revolving Fund] program has been unable to provide project funding to address some of the most vexing compliance challenges faced by privately-owned public water systems.”
The EPA’s report goes on to say that “most, if not all” of these kinds of public water systems in Alaska would qualify to receive financial assistance intended for disadvantaged communities. The EPA says that, without changes to state law, Alaska might not meet federal requirements for helping disadvantaged communities. “At the next available opportunity, Alaska should seek to make changes,” according to the report.
The EPA has expressed concern in reports that Wisconsin and Puerto Rico don’t have enough staff to handle the influx of funds. The EPA wrote that Puerto Rico needs more staff “to address all the work that is required to run the SRF program effectively.”
Illinois, according to an EPA report, isn’t offering disadvantaged communities enough help —called “technical assistance” — to apply for federal funds. “Disadvantage [sic] communities typically do not have the resources and means to take advantage of SRF programs so providing them direct technical assistance is considered a vital approach for distributing BIL funding equitably and increasing the participation of disadvantage communities within the SRF programs,” according to the report.
An EPA report on Washington state pointed out “a disparity” between federal regulations and an EPA memo regarding how to apply a subsidy to a disadvantaged area within a water system when it serves a larger area that is not considered disadvantaged. The report does not elaborate.
The EPA’s report on Illinois — estimated to have the most lead service lines in the nation — shows that the state had not applied for federal funds to address lead pipes during the first year of Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding, but that it was planning to do so in summer 2023. (That delay may disproportionately impact racial minorities. “People of color in Illinois are substantially more likely — up to twice as likely — to live in municipalities where nearly all of Illinois’ lead service lines exist,” the Metropolitan Planning Council found in 2020.)
In contrast, Ohio, with the second-highest estimated number of lead lines, received its first disbursement of Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funds for lead pipe replacement in September 2022. Michigan, with the third highest, also received funds in 2022 to deal with lead pipes.
In the EPA report on Nebraska, the agency wrote that “congressionally directed spending reductions have reduced the amount of available funding for projects.” Similar concerns were raised in the EPA reports on New York, Rhode Island, and California. Advocacy groups and organizations that represent local and state drinking officials have warned that congressionally directed spending — also known as earmarks — can put funding for disadvantaged communities at risk by reducing the amount available for them.
What Some Reports Don’t Address
As POGO detailed in an investigation this May regarding EPA oversight and Jackson, Mississippi’s water crisis, what these EPA reports don’t address can hide bigger problems.
Despite EPA’s goal to ensure that significant funds from this historic investment reach disadvantaged communities in states throughout the nation, some EPA oversight reports do not explicitly discuss “disadvantaged communities” at all. EPA reports on Missouri, Nevada, and Utah do not mention the words “disadvantaged communities,” although the report on Utah uses the term “hardship.”
When the EPA does not document concerns with how states define disadvantaged communities, that could affect where federal funds end up. For example, last summer, the Association of Metropolitan Drinking Water Administrators detailed how Missouri’s definition (which was not discussed in the EPA’s report) leaves the state’s biggest metropolitan area — Kansas City, Missouri — without access to federal assistance. “Many Census tracts in Kansas City (about half of the city’s area) are disadvantaged,” states the association in a June 2023 letter.
Related Content
How Lax EPA Oversight Enabled Jackson’s Water Crisis
