State, Local Officials Sound Alarm on Federal Funding and Staff Cuts
The new administration’s actions in freezing federal funding, cutting agency staff, eradicating programs, and promising draconian future budget cuts has mobilized state and local environmental officials to push back. Numerous established professional groups—whose members include state agency leaders as well as tens of thousands of professionals who manage wastewater, drinking water, solid and hazardous waste, air pollution, hydropower, and soil quality—have issued letters and statements about the critical importance of federal funding.
A statement by the Environmental Council of the States, whose members are both Republican and Democratic agency leaders, underscores that “states carry out more than 90 percent of the nation’s federal environmental laws” and count on Congress to provide support through U.S. EPA’s partnerships and grants.
Similarly, nine environmental professional associations, including the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, sent a letter to congressional leaders emphasizing that to “achieve clean air, water, and land under cooperative federalism, Congress must provide funding leadership.” The letter asserts: “Cutting funds that support our programs would have uncountable unintended consequences.”
It is not surprising that associations of state and local environmental officials are willing to enter the fray. In a 1994 book, David Arnold and Jeremy Plant observe that these associations “play a role no one else plays in the operation of the American political system.” They explain: “By virtue of their membership base, these associations are as close as one can come to government without being government.” They further note that “no other organizations can claim to speak for public officials while at the same time claiming the freedom of expression granted to all voluntary organizations in American public life.”
The associations’ missives cite myriad programs in jeopardy due to funding cuts, including efforts to address emerging contaminants, nonpoint source nutrient reduction, and air pollution from wildfires. For example, 10 associations, whose members include professionals who operate over 65,000 utilities, such as the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, warned the new EPA administrator that a “reduction in federal funds would be catastrophic to local water infrastructure.” Their letter emphasizes the essential functions states perform, such as project permitting and compliance inspections. In no uncertain terms, the letter forewarns: “Should water infrastructure under investment continue, alongside a reduction in the states and EPA’s capacity, our nation’s water systems will be increasingly vulnerable to natural and man-made disasters.”
Similarly, the National Association of Conservation Districts, whose members include thousands of local government agencies, issued a February report highlighting the “widespread impacts on producers, conservation, and local economies” of the federal funding freezes. The report calls for continued support of the locally led conservation delivery system, which it characterizes as “vital” for “sustaining the health and productivity of our lands and waters.” Its report also cites delays in infrastructure projects to “repair high-hazard dams, recover from and mitigate future impacts of wildfires, and replace culverts and other water systems to maintain water quality.”
Several of the associations also emphasize the deleterious effects of federal staffing cuts. The National Water Resources Association—whose members include agriculture and municipal water agencies and other entities that provide water to 50 million individuals, families, agricultural producers, and other industries—urged in a letter to the Bureau of Reclamation’s acting commissioner that he carefully consider “preserving mission-critical personnel who are vital to the agency’s operations of water delivery and hydropower production,” noting that their “institutional knowledge and technical skills . . . are not easily replaced.” To mitigate harms resulting from staff reductions, the letter suggests that irrigation districts could be authorized to assume facility operations in certain cases and that federal employees could be converted to irrigation district personnel.
The NACD report similarly concludes that U.S. Department of Agriculture staff terminations, staffing shortages, and “future potential workforce reductions” are undermining the “ability to provide quality and timely services to farmers, ranchers, and forest stewards across the country.”
It remains to be seen whether the willingness of professionals to take a stand will influence the administration’s ongoing funding decisions or 2026 budget. There will be opportunities to heed their warnings, however, because the continuing resolution passed by Congress in March does not provide detailed instructions on how to use the funds. Consequently, in the coming months the administration will be able to reallocate funds and increase or decrease support for specific programs.
State, Local Officials Sound Alarm on Federal Funding and Staff Cuts
