

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
President Barack Obama's 2017 budget, released Tuesday, includes a proposal to cut more than a third of a billion dollars from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) state water funding program, just weeks after the president declared a state of emergency over Flint, Michigan's water crisis.
The budget proposes slashing $370 million, or 11 percent, from the EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CW SRF)--which support water quality improvement projects like treatment plants--and reallocating the money to the Drinking Water (DW) SRF, which supports clean water systems and infrastructure.
Despite claims that the change would "boost water sustainability and reduce the price and energy costs of new water supply technology," watchdog groups warn that it does nothing to remedy the urgent water crises facing chronically underfunded communities like Flint.
But as Mae Wu, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), wrote in a blog post on Tuesday, that method is akin to "robbing Peter to pay Paul."
"Cutting funds that help keep pollution out of our water (CW SRF) and moving the money to remove pollution once it's already in our drinking water (DW SRF) is no solution at all," Wu wrote, noting that there is no guarantee the funds will ever even reach Flint.
"At best it is a short-term band-aid approach to addressing the chronic levels of underinvestment in our water infrastructure by local, state, and federal government," Wu said. "Both of the SRFs need more funding."
As Flint continues to struggle with lead poisoning in its public water, and Detroit residents are faced with ongoing water service shutoffs targeting low-income residents and communities of color, the cuts to such critical services are "unacceptable," said environmental advocacy group Food and Water Watch.
"Following the Flint water crisis, which is emblematic of our national water woes, it is outrageous that the Obama Administration can't be moved to truly step up and deliver the leadership needed to fully fund our water infrastructure," said the group's executive director Wenonah Hauter.
The cuts were also slammed on Capitol Hill, with Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) saying he was "grossly disappointed" by the proposal.
As Hauter pointed out, the budget is requesting a total of $2 billion for both SRFs, which "is a $257 million decrease over what Congress appropriated for 2016."
"Whether it's kids poisoned by lead in Flint and other towns, water service shutoffs in Baltimore and Detroit or water contaminated by factory farms in Ohio and Iowa, we face a growing water crisis that requires real, long term solutions that keep water clean, affordable and democratically controlled," Hauter said.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
President Barack Obama's 2017 budget, released Tuesday, includes a proposal to cut more than a third of a billion dollars from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) state water funding program, just weeks after the president declared a state of emergency over Flint, Michigan's water crisis.
The budget proposes slashing $370 million, or 11 percent, from the EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CW SRF)--which support water quality improvement projects like treatment plants--and reallocating the money to the Drinking Water (DW) SRF, which supports clean water systems and infrastructure.
Despite claims that the change would "boost water sustainability and reduce the price and energy costs of new water supply technology," watchdog groups warn that it does nothing to remedy the urgent water crises facing chronically underfunded communities like Flint.
But as Mae Wu, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), wrote in a blog post on Tuesday, that method is akin to "robbing Peter to pay Paul."
"Cutting funds that help keep pollution out of our water (CW SRF) and moving the money to remove pollution once it's already in our drinking water (DW SRF) is no solution at all," Wu wrote, noting that there is no guarantee the funds will ever even reach Flint.
"At best it is a short-term band-aid approach to addressing the chronic levels of underinvestment in our water infrastructure by local, state, and federal government," Wu said. "Both of the SRFs need more funding."
As Flint continues to struggle with lead poisoning in its public water, and Detroit residents are faced with ongoing water service shutoffs targeting low-income residents and communities of color, the cuts to such critical services are "unacceptable," said environmental advocacy group Food and Water Watch.
"Following the Flint water crisis, which is emblematic of our national water woes, it is outrageous that the Obama Administration can't be moved to truly step up and deliver the leadership needed to fully fund our water infrastructure," said the group's executive director Wenonah Hauter.
The cuts were also slammed on Capitol Hill, with Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) saying he was "grossly disappointed" by the proposal.
As Hauter pointed out, the budget is requesting a total of $2 billion for both SRFs, which "is a $257 million decrease over what Congress appropriated for 2016."
"Whether it's kids poisoned by lead in Flint and other towns, water service shutoffs in Baltimore and Detroit or water contaminated by factory farms in Ohio and Iowa, we face a growing water crisis that requires real, long term solutions that keep water clean, affordable and democratically controlled," Hauter said.
President Barack Obama's 2017 budget, released Tuesday, includes a proposal to cut more than a third of a billion dollars from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) state water funding program, just weeks after the president declared a state of emergency over Flint, Michigan's water crisis.
The budget proposes slashing $370 million, or 11 percent, from the EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CW SRF)--which support water quality improvement projects like treatment plants--and reallocating the money to the Drinking Water (DW) SRF, which supports clean water systems and infrastructure.
Despite claims that the change would "boost water sustainability and reduce the price and energy costs of new water supply technology," watchdog groups warn that it does nothing to remedy the urgent water crises facing chronically underfunded communities like Flint.
But as Mae Wu, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), wrote in a blog post on Tuesday, that method is akin to "robbing Peter to pay Paul."
"Cutting funds that help keep pollution out of our water (CW SRF) and moving the money to remove pollution once it's already in our drinking water (DW SRF) is no solution at all," Wu wrote, noting that there is no guarantee the funds will ever even reach Flint.
"At best it is a short-term band-aid approach to addressing the chronic levels of underinvestment in our water infrastructure by local, state, and federal government," Wu said. "Both of the SRFs need more funding."
As Flint continues to struggle with lead poisoning in its public water, and Detroit residents are faced with ongoing water service shutoffs targeting low-income residents and communities of color, the cuts to such critical services are "unacceptable," said environmental advocacy group Food and Water Watch.
"Following the Flint water crisis, which is emblematic of our national water woes, it is outrageous that the Obama Administration can't be moved to truly step up and deliver the leadership needed to fully fund our water infrastructure," said the group's executive director Wenonah Hauter.
The cuts were also slammed on Capitol Hill, with Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) saying he was "grossly disappointed" by the proposal.
As Hauter pointed out, the budget is requesting a total of $2 billion for both SRFs, which "is a $257 million decrease over what Congress appropriated for 2016."
"Whether it's kids poisoned by lead in Flint and other towns, water service shutoffs in Baltimore and Detroit or water contaminated by factory farms in Ohio and Iowa, we face a growing water crisis that requires real, long term solutions that keep water clean, affordable and democratically controlled," Hauter said.