PoliticsDonald TrumpU.S. NewsPolitics

Rural Americans’ Drinking Water At Stake With Trump Budget Cuts

Trump strongholds would be hit hardest by his plans to reduce funds for small-town water systems and ease rules on polluters.
Open Image Modal
By 

Senior Reporter, HuffPost

Open Image Modal
Advocates fear that the elimination of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's rural water program will hit some of the nation's most disadvantaged communities hard.
Isabella Carapella/The Huffington Post

President Donald Trump’s election victory last fall relied on rural communities. Now, four months later, those same communities face a significant share of cuts in the budget proposal Trump unveiled last week.

Trump spending reductions that explicitly target rural communities include a water and wastewater loan and grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The program, with an annual budget of $498 million, helps rural communities fix water infrastructure systems. Trump’s budget proposes to eliminate the entire program, arguing that private financing and increased funding from Environmental Protection Agency state revolving water funds can offset the “duplicative” USDA program.

But rural advocates say there’s a problem with that plan.

The $2.3 billion budget for the EPA’s state revolving funds program is slated to increase $4 million — less than 1 percent. And many rural water systems are not equipped to compete with larger systems for that money. These smaller water systems also are less appealing to private investors, due to their limited, lower-income customer bases. 

As Mike Keegan, a spokesman for the National Rural Water Association, pointed out, more than two-thirds of EPA’s state revolving water funds have typically gone to larger water systems. Without serious changes to the EPA program, rural communities would struggle — and likely fail — to get the support they need, he said.  

“This federal initiative has been the historical solution for small and rural water infrastructure needs and is largely responsible for the success of delivering water and sanitation to almost every corner of rural America,” Keegan told HuffPost. “Elimination of the USDA rural water program will disproportionately impact the most economically disadvantaged communities in the country.”

Many of these communities are already struggling to comply with federal standards to deliver reliably safe drinking water.

About 4 million rural Americans receive water from small, under-resourced water utilities that don’t properly conduct required lead testing, USA Today reported last year.  

The bulk of these water utilities are also dealing with decaying delivery systems. Small water systems will need an estimated $64.5 billion in infrastructure spending over the next 20 years, according to an EPA assessment. 

Forcing water systems to put off needed investments in infrastructure would likely make problems increasingly expensive to fix.

A report released Wednesday by the Value of Water Campaign found that U.S. water systems of all sizes already are dealing with an $82 billion infrastructure investment gap between actual funding and what’s needed. By 2040, the gap is projected to hit a staggering $153 billion.

These problems present a public health threat. Degraded pipes become more likely to corrode over time. If they are partially made of lead, as they are for an estimated 10 million U.S. homes, that could mean higher levels of lead in drinking water. 

“I don’t think people voted for that,” Lara Bryant, a soil health fellow at the Natural Resources Defense Council water program, said of the proposal to ax the USDA water program.

Bryant noted that rural communities have particular water quality concerns due to agricultural pollution, such as nutrient runoff from livestock manure and chemical fertilizers.

Bryant said these cuts, along with Trump proposals to reduce the EPA’s enforcement budget, and eliminate the Clean Water Rule and other regulations intended to reduce pollution, could devastate rural communities.

“All these different things are going to make it harder to mitigate the causes of water pollution,” Bryant said. “Losing any opportunity to improve rural water quality will hurt people in ways they don’t expect and can’t foresee.”

The cuts to the USDA water program, like all of the proposals included in the president’s budget blueprint, are not set in stone. Congress ultimately will sign off on the spending plan, and influential House Agriculture Committee members from both political parties have spoken out against the proposed slashing of the USDA budget. 

This gives Wise County, Texas, Judge J.D. Clark, chair of the National Association of Counties’ Rural Action Caucus, some hope for a solution, such as restored funding for the USDA water initiative or changes to the EPA’s state revolving water funds program that make it more accessible to rural systems.

“This budget is a starting point,” Clark told HuffPost. “If the thought is we’re going to reduce or consolidate some of these programs, how might we be able to structure them so that rural communities can have an effective shot at some dollars, too?”

Meanwhile, Trump’s nominee to lead the USDA, former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, may face questions about proposed cuts to the department’s budget, when his long-delayed confirmation hearing begins Thursday in Washington.

―-

Joseph Erbentraut covers promising innovations and challenges in the areas of food, water, agriculture and our climate. Follow Erbentraut on Twitter at @robojojo. Tips? Email joseph.erbentraut@huffingtonpost.com.

Our 2024 Coverage Needs You

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

to keep our news free for all.

Support HuffPost

Before You Go

What You Can Do Right Now To Stop Donald Trump's Dangerous Climate Agenda
Strengthen city, county and state climate efforts(01 of07)
Open Image Modal
If the federal government refuses to stand up against climate change, it’ll be more important than ever for cities, counties and states to pick up the slack and become climate leaders. That means committing to divest from fossil fuels, embrace clean energy, set emissions targets and develop climate action plans, among other measures.

“The ominous signals coming out of D.C. point to even more work needed at the city and state level,” said Kate Kiely, national media deputy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. In November, the NRDC announced partnerships with 20 cities across the country from St. Paul, Minnesota, to Houston, Texas, to make strides in renewable energy.

According to Brune, cities could have an especially big influence in the climate change fight. “We should be pushing cities to go 100 percent clean energy and to reject natural gas and coal and other fossil fuels,” he said. “A majority of people now live in cities, so this could have a dramatic impact.”

In the U.S., at least 20 cities have made commitments to rely completely on clean energy.

“People should organize and get their own cities to move forward,” Brune said.

Contact your mayor, city council, or county or state representative and get them to set a timeline to stop using fossil fuels. (credit:Eduardo Munoz/Reuters)
Push companies and institutions to divest from fossil fuels(02 of07)
Open Image Modal
“There are a lot of things that the president can’t undo. He can’t stop the fact that solar and wind are cheaper than coal and gas. He can’t change the fact that dozens of businesses have already committed to clean energy,” Brune said.

As of December, more than 640 institutions worldwide, including several universities, churches and for-profit companies and banks, have pledged to divest from their fossil fuel investments. According to Go Fossil Free, a 350.org campaign, the commitments amount to more than $3.4 trillion.

Consumers should petition companies to ditch their fossil fuel investments, and students should urge their schools and colleges to do the same.

“As we wrap up the hottest year in history, we know that investments in the fossil fuel industry fund these climate impacts. That’s why it’s more critical than ever that we push our institutions to divest from the fossil fuel companies that are knowingly perpetuating the climate crisis,” Lindsay Meiman, U.S. communications coordinator for 350.org, told HuffPost.

Want to push a company, school or place of worship to divest from fossil fuels? 350.org has a list of resources to help you start a campaign. Or find an existing one to get involved in. (credit:Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Put your money where your mouth is(03 of07)
Open Image Modal
Petitions and protests can be powerful, but moving your money speaks volumes too. As a consumer and as an investor, ensure you're not personally financing climate change. This means, for example, choosing banks that are free of fossil fuel connections.

“Your ATM card or checking account or your mortgage, these should not be financed by companies that are taking your checking fees or other payments to subsidize the Dakota Access Pipeline or finance drilling offshore. Make sure your money aligns with your values,” Brune said.

In September, Amalgamated Bank became the first North American bank to commit to divest 100 percent from fossil fuels. Aspiration has bank accounts that are fossil fuel-free, and Beneficial State Bank has credit cards that don’t invest in fossil fuels.

Anthony Hobley, CEO of the Carbon Tracker Initiative, said consumers should also ensure that their pensions, 401(k) or other retirement savings accounts are similarly not underwriting fossil fuel companies.

“A lot of pressure can be made through the financial industry,” Hobley said from London. “Ordinary people who hold pensions can put pressure on companies through their pensions. Put pressure on the people who manage your money and that’s one way to keep pressure on those companies too.”

The financial services companies that manage retirement accounts “aren’t used to getting many letters from the people whose money they manage,” Hobley added. “It wouldn’t take much of an organized effort for them to take notice.”

Are your investments supporting fossil fuels? FossilFreeFunds.org is a web tool that allows people to check whether their individual investments or employer-provided 401(k) is supporting coal companies, oil and gas producers, and fossil-fired utilities. (credit:Andrew Burton/Getty Images)
Making a "financial case" for clean energy(04 of07)
Open Image Modal
Hobley believes the “best chance” we have of convincing Trump to care about climate change is to make a compelling “financial case” for renewables.

With new clean energy technologies getting more efficient and cheaper than fossil fuels, a transition to renewables is “inevitable,” said Hobley. It’s just a matter of time.

“Trump can no more stop this transition than a previous U.S. president could’ve stopped the transition from steam locomotives to the automobile or the typewriter to the computer. The technological genie is already out of the bag,” he said. “It’s not a case of ‘if,’ but ‘when.’ But the ‘when’ is important because of the 2 degrees budget, and that’s where a lack of political leadership or resistance can have a real impact.”

Clear political leadership from both the U.S. and China could mean a "smoother" and faster transition to clean energy. A lack thereof, however, could “make it easier for big oil and gas companies to stay in denial” — and that “would be to their detriment,” Hobley said. “It would mean pouring more money, billions or trillions of dollars, into fossil fuel assets that we simply don’t need.”

Trump now has the opportunity to make the United States a leader in clean energy.

“These are complicated and highly technical products,” Hobley said. “With an educated and skilled workforce, these are the kinds of things that should be manufactured in the U.S.”

Creating new jobs was a central part of Trump’s election platform. Maybe someone should remind him that the clean energy industry creates more jobs per unit of energy than coal and natural gas. In 2015, the number of U.S. jobs in solar energy overtook those in oil and natural gas extraction for the very first time.

A 2015 report by NextGen Climate America found that a transition to clean energy would add a million jobs by 2030 and up to 2 million jobs by 2050, while increasing the nation's gross domestic product by $290 billion and boosting household income.

We should be citing such figures and urging utility companies and public utility commissions to embrace clean energy. (Public utility commissions regularly hold hearings that are open to the public. Attend them, and voice your thoughts!) (credit:Aaron Bernstein/Reuters)
Speak out!(05 of07)
Open Image Modal
What’s the single biggest way you can influence climate change? According to the NRDC, it’s speaking up.

“Talk to your friends and family, and make sure your representatives are making good decisions,” Aliya Haq, deputy director of NRDC’s Clean Power Plan Initiative, wrote in a blog post. “The main reason elected officials do anything difficult is because their constituents make them.”

In the coming months and years, “there will be mass mobilizations that folks should join to push back against Trump’s regressive policies and hateful rhetoric,” said 350.org’s Meiman. “Folks can engage online by joining online actions, signing petitions and contributing their voice on social media to push back on Trump’s agenda.”

You can also participate in protests in your area or join and support local nonprofits in their fight against climate change. (credit:Pacific Press/Getty Images)
Reduce your own carbon footprint(06 of07)
Open Image Modal
Power your own home with renewable energy, invest in energy-efficient appliances and lightbulbs, and remember to weatherize.

“Building heating and cooling are among the biggest uses of energy,” said NRDC’s Haq. Make your home more energy-efficient by sealing drafts and ensuring your home is adequately insulated and ventilated too.

Also consider changing your diet. “Cut down on meat consumption or even eliminate it from your diet completely,” Brune said. “I do think that people can have a powerful impact on the environment just by eating less meat.”

It takes 14 times as much biologically productive land to produce 1 ton of beef as it takes to produce 1 ton of grain, according to the Global Footprint Network.

Global livestock is also responsible for 14.5 percent of all anthropogenic carbon emissions, data from the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization shows.

Driving a fuel-efficient vehicle is another way to reduce your carbon footprint. You can also take steps to be more fuel efficient when you're on the road, no matter what car you drive. (credit:Hinterhaus Productions/Getty Images)
Support environmental journalism(07 of07)
Open Image Modal
A major shortcoming of journalists during the presidential election was their failure to highlight climate change as a vital topic ― and to force Trump (and Hillary Clinton, too) to address this crisis.

Over the next four years, Trump needs to be held accountable, and the press must make climate change a central issue in his presidency.

The Society of Environmental Journalists, a nonprofit membership organization supporting environmental journalists in the U.S. and around the world, aims to “improve the quality, accuracy and visibility of reporting on the environment.” You can also support nonprofit environmental news outlets such as Inside Climate, Grist and High Country News. (credit:Jewel Samad/Getty Images)
Suggest a correction
|
Submit a tip