I’ve always cared deeply about my local watershed’s health. When I was in my 20s, I volunteered with local protection groups—joining stream cleanups and actively monitoring our local water for pollution. Back then, when we discovered contaminants, we didn’t hesitate to report them to our state environmental agency or the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I saw firsthand how EPA would track down the pollution source and issue fines to hold violators accountable. But even then, it was clear that our local volunteer efforts were filling in the gaps left by an EPA that was already operating with very limited resources.
Now, our water is under siege—not only by natural disasters or corporate greed, but by a goal set by President Trump and EPA Administrator Zeldin: to completely gut EPA. Last week, Administrator Zeldin stated the goal of the administration was to cut EPA spending by 65%.
With an overall operating budget of roughly $9.16 billion, a 65% cut would reduce the agency’s budget to around $3 billion - EPA hasn’t had to work with such a low budget since the 1970s! EPA is our frontline defense against pollution; is this really all the President thinks we should spend on keeping us safe? For protecting our water sources, EPA relies on “The Office of Water.” Within EPA’s budget, the Office of Water gets $426 million to implement the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act and keep every community’s water safe. Imagine what happens when that support is slashed by nearly two-thirds!
The Dire Consequences of Drastic Cuts
Falling Short of Legal Obligations
EPA’s statutory work—the actions it’s legally bound to perform under the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other laws—is what keeps our water safe. Gutting their budget would force EPA to do only the bare minimum, if that. This means essential functions like enforcing regulations, issuing permits, monitoring pollution, keeping us from getting sick, and responding to contamination emergencies would suffer. We cannot force an agency, tasked by law to protect our water, to operate at a fraction of its capacity.
The Critical Role of Water Monitoring
Water quality monitoring is the bedrock of protection against pollution. We can’t reduce what we haven’t measured. When I volunteered, we played a role in flagging issues— but limited volunteer resources cannot hope to reproduce EPA’s monitoring on the presence of toxic PFAS, or any number of pollutants. A cut this drastic would cripple EPA’s ability to carry out its responsibilities. Routine testing and prompt response are not luxuries; they are legally mandated actions under laws like the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Maintaining the current level of monitoring would be near impossible with the proposed cuts.
Impeding Emergency Response
Beyond routine monitoring, EPA plays a crucial role in responding to environmental emergencies—such as chemical spills, water contamination events, or natural disasters that threaten water supplies. With the devastating proposed cut, the agency’s ability to mobilize rapid, effective responses would be gravely impaired. Reduced funding means fewer trained responders, diminished coordination with state and local agencies, and a slower reaction time—all of which could lead to prolonged exposure to dangerous pollutants and catastrophic outcomes for our health.
Undermining Local Support
Beyond federal oversight, EPA’s programs provide critical technical assistance and grant support to state and local water systems. Throughout my life, I’ve seen firsthand how this support transforms communities—helping upgrade aging infrastructure and fostering innovative water treatment solutions. With a crippled EPA, these programs could fall apart, leaving local governments scrambling and our water quality in jeopardy.
Restricting Capacity for Research
A significant portion of the EPA’s budget—roughly 10–15% or about $1 to $1.2 billion—is devoted to researching new solutions for pollution protection. This robust investment is a cornerstone of the agency’s ability to develop new monitoring techniques, identify emerging pollutants, and create science-based policies that protect our air, water, and health.
If we were to strip away the capacity for innovation, as the proposed cuts would assuredly do, the consequences would be dire. Without these critical resources, the EPA would lose its ability to craft breakthrough solutions and adapt its regulatory framework to evolving challenges. In practical terms, this means slower responses to new threats—like previously unknown contaminants or climate-induced water quality challenges—and a stagnation in our ability to safeguard our communities. Our water, our air, and our environment would be left with outdated solutions, unable to keep pace with the complex and ever-changing challenges we face today and tomorrow.
Our Health, Our Environment, Our Future at Risk
This isn’t just another budget debate. It’s a battle for our right to clean water—a resource that underpins our health, our economy, and our future. President Trump and EPA Administrator Zeldin’s proposed cut would not only reverse decades of progress; it would endanger the very systems that ensure our water remains pure and safe.
We cannot stand by while political leaders jeopardize our environment for short-term gains.
EPA Must be at Full Capacity to Work
The US Environmental Protection Agency keeps us healthy, it innovates, it protects communities, and it holds polluters accountable. EPA provides a vital service. The idea of gutting its budget, and unceremoniously firing its hard-working staff is a disturbing abdication of responsibility that would harm everyone.
President Trump and his polluter friends are trying to trick you into thinking of critical safeguards as “waste.”
Do not fall for it.
