A coordinated national campaign to protect and strengthen the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.
About the Campaign
The Save the SRFs campaign works to protect the federal financing that helps communities across the nation provide safe, reliable, and affordable clean water. Proposed cuts to State Revolving Fund capitalization funding could limit critical investments in drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in communities of every size. Learn what is at stake and how you can help protect this essential funding.
The Case
For decades, the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs have been the nation’s primary long-term water infrastructure financing system. Unlike one-time grants, SRFs recycle loan repayments into future investment — continuing to generate financing capacity for communities decades after the original federal dollars were appropriated. States and local governments already carry the overwhelming majority of the cost. According to a February 2025 Congressional Budget Office study, state and local governments provided 96% of public funding for water infrastructure — including both drinking water and wastewater systems — in 2023, while the federal government provided 4%.⁵ Federal capitalization through the SRFs isn’t a handout; it’s a targeted investment that leverages far greater state and local resources. Even so, current funding no longer matches the need. Congress authorizes $3.25 billion annually for each SRF program through FY2026, but the Environmental Protection Agency’s own needs surveys identify approximately $630 billion in clean water infrastructure needs and approximately $625 billion in drinking water infrastructure needs over the next 20 years — national needs exceeding $1.2 trillion.⁶ ⁷ ⁸ And FY2027 is the first year without the supplemental funding that came through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), just as states need it most.¹
A portion of the regular annual SRF appropriation is reserved each year for Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending (CPF/CDS), commonly called earmarks, before the remainder is distributed to states by formula. In FY2026, that reservation was 54% of the Clean Water SRF (CWSRF) appropriation and 64% of the Drinking Water SRF (DWSRF) appropriation.¹ ² For the past five years, this effect has been substantially offset by IIJA supplemental funding, which added $2.6 billion annually to each of the CWSRF and DWSRF — $5.2 billion combined every year — on top of the regular appropriation.¹ IIJA funding expires at the end of FY2026.
IIJA supplemental funding masked the impact of the earmark carve-out on SRF capitalization for the past five years. That offset ends in FY2027. FY2021 is the last fiscal year with no CPF/CDS carve-out and no IIJA supplemental funding — a clean, pre-earmark baseline.⁴ Comparing that baseline to FY2027, even after excluding the earmark carve-out from the FY2027 figure entirely, shows CWSRF funding falling 59.4%, DWSRF falling 64.1%, and combined funding falling 61.3%.³ ⁴ States are not returning to pre-earmark funding levels in FY2027. They are falling far below them.
The CWSRF figure in this comparison ($665.3M) nets out both the CPF/CDS carve-out and an additional $1.5M reserved for the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS). The DWSRF figure reflects only the CPF/CDS carve-out; there is no equivalent CWNS deduction on the drinking water side.³
The result: total federal resources reaching state SRF capitalization grants are on track to fall from approximately $6.36 billion in FY2026 to approximately $1.07 billion under the FY2027 House proposal — a decrease of roughly 83%.¹ ³
Cuts to SRF capitalization are not savings. They are deferred costs, paid by communities.
The Ask
The Impact
decrease in total federal resources reaching state SRF capitalization grants, FY2026 to the FY2027 House proposal, once the expiration of IIJA supplemental funding is factored in.¹ ³
State
FY26 Base Cap Grant
FY26 IIJA Gen. Supp.
FY26 Total (Base + IIJA)
FY27 (House)
$ Lost
% Change
National Total
$1,124.1M
$5,062.1M
$6,186.2M
$1,053.3M
-$5,132.9M
-83.0%
Alabama
$14.9M
$71.8M
$86.6M
$14.1M
-$72.5M
-83.7%
Alaska
$8.2M
$39.8M
$47.9M
$7.7M
-$40.2M
-83.9%
American Indian & Alaska Native Water System
$22.9M
$104.1M
$127.0M
$21.6M
-$105.4M
-83.0%
American Samoa
$5.0M
$21.0M
$26.0M
$4.7M
-$21.3M
-81.9%
Arizona
$11.6M
$60.3M
$71.9M
$11.1M
-$60.8M
-84.6%
Arkansas
$9.3M
$46.1M
$55.4M
$8.9M
-$46.5M
-83.9%
California
$93.1M
$446.5M
$539.5M
$88.1M
-$451.4M
-83.7%
Colorado
$12.5M
$63.5M
$76.0M
$11.9M
-$64.1M
-84.3%
Connecticut
$12.7M
$55.4M
$68.1M
$11.8M
-$56.3M
-82.7%
Delaware
$7.4M
$37.1M
$44.5M
$7.0M
-$37.5M
-84.3%
District of Columbia
$7.4M
$37.1M
$44.5M
$7.0M
-$37.5M
-84.3%
Florida
$38.2M
$173.8M
$212.0M
$35.9M
-$176.1M
-83.1%
Georgia
$22.6M
$109.6M
$132.2M
$21.4M
-$110.8M
-83.8%
Hawaii
$9.4M
$44.2M
$53.6M
$8.9M
-$44.7M
-83.4%
Idaho
$7.4M
$37.1M
$44.5M
$7.0M
-$37.5M
-84.3%
Illinois
$44.3M
$188.1M
$232.4M
$41.1M
-$191.3M
-82.3%
Indiana
$24.0M
$102.7M
$126.7M
$22.3M
-$104.4M
-82.4%
Iowa
$15.5M
$71.1M
$86.6M
$14.6M
-$72.0M
-83.1%
Kansas
$10.8M
$50.2M
$61.0M
$10.2M
-$50.8M
-83.3%
Kentucky
$13.9M
$62.0M
$75.8M
$13.0M
-$62.8M
-82.9%
Louisiana
$13.2M
$61.3M
$74.5M
$12.4M
-$62.1M
-83.4%
Maine
$9.4M
$44.2M
$53.6M
$8.9M
-$44.7M
-83.4%
Maryland
$25.4M
$111.9M
$137.3M
$23.7M
-$113.6M
-82.7%
Massachusetts
$32.7M
$137.9M
$170.7M
$30.4M
-$140.3M
-82.2%
Michigan
$39.8M
$163.8M
$203.6M
$36.8M
-$166.8M
-81.9%
Minnesota
$19.1M
$83.4M
$102.5M
$17.8M
-$84.7M
-82.6%
Mississippi
$11.3M
$53.6M
$64.9M
$10.7M
-$54.2M
-83.5%
Missouri
$26.3M
$109.5M
$135.8M
$24.3M
-$111.5M
-82.1%
Montana
$7.4M
$37.1M
$44.5M
$7.0M
-$37.5M
-84.3%
Nebraska
$7.5M
$37.6M
$45.1M
$7.2M
-$37.9M
-84.1%
Nevada
$7.5M
$38.0M
$45.5M
$7.2M
-$38.3M
-84.2%
New Hampshire
$11.1M
$49.8M
$60.8M
$10.4M
-$50.4M
-82.9%
New Jersey
$36.3M
$145.9M
$182.2M
$33.5M
-$148.7M
-81.6%
New Mexico
$7.4M
$37.1M
$44.5M
$7.0M
-$37.5M
-84.3%
New York
$97.6M
$390.9M
$488.5M
$89.9M
-$398.6M
-81.6%
North Carolina
$23.6M
$113.5M
$137.1M
$22.4M
-$114.7M
-83.7%
North Dakota
$7.4M
$37.1M
$44.5M
$7.0M
-$37.5M
-84.3%
North Mariana Islands
$3.5M
$17.4M
$20.9M
$3.3M
-$17.6M
-84.2%
Ohio
$49.3M
$196.3M
$245.6M
$45.4M
-$200.2M
-81.5%
Oklahoma
$11.4M
$56.3M
$67.7M
$10.9M
-$56.8M
-83.9%
Oregon
$13.9M
$65.5M
$79.5M
$13.1M
-$66.4M
-83.5%
Pennsylvania
$41.3M
$180.7M
$221.9M
$38.5M
-$183.4M
-82.7%
Puerto Rico
$13.3M
$57.3M
$70.6M
$12.3M
-$58.3M
-82.6%
Rhode Island
$8.7M
$41.6M
$50.3M
$8.2M
-$42.1M
-83.7%
South Carolina
$12.2M
$56.6M
$68.8M
$11.5M
-$57.3M
-83.3%
South Dakota
$7.4M
$37.1M
$44.5M
$7.0M
-$37.5M
-84.3%
Tennessee
$16.9M
$78.0M
$95.0M
$15.9M
-$79.1M
-83.3%
Texas
$63.6M
$312.2M
$375.8M
$60.4M
-$315.4M
-83.9%
U.S. Virgin Islands
$3.7M
$17.1M
$20.8M
$3.5M
-$17.3M
-83.1%
Utah
$7.6M
$38.0M
$45.6M
$7.3M
-$38.3M
-84.0%
Vermont
$7.4M
$37.1M
$44.5M
$7.0M
-$37.5M
-84.3%
Virginia
$20.2M
$86.1M
$106.3M
$18.8M
-$87.5M
-82.3%
Washington
$21.3M
$100.3M
$121.6M
$20.1M
-$101.5M
-83.5%
West Virginia
$15.1M
$63.7M
$78.8M
$14.0M
-$64.8M
-82.2%
Wisconsin
$26.1M
$109.9M
$136.0M
$24.2M
-$111.8M
-82.2%
Wyoming
$7.4M
$37.1M
$44.5M
$7.0M
-$37.5M
-84.3%
Percentage changes are calculated using exact FY2026–FY2027 capitalization grant figures prior to rounding. Dollar figures are rounded to the nearest $0.1 million for display, so states with similar rounded totals may show different percentage changes.
Project Stories
CWSRF - Marquette County Landfill, Michigan
Project Submitted by Daniel Jaroche, Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy
Problem
Leachate from the Marquette County landfill was testing above permitted levels for PFAS, threatening the Carp River and triggering a voluntary Administrative Consent Order with the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy.
Solution
A $7 million Clean Water SRF award — including $4.4 million in principal forgiveness — equipped the landfill with a reverse osmosis treatment system to remove PFAS and other contaminants from its leachate.
Impact
The system removes more than 99.9% of contaminants before discharge, protecting roughly 66,000 Marquette County residents. In 2025, EPA recognized the project as "Exceptional" under its national PISCES program — one of only six projects chosen nationwide.
CWSRF - Clackamas Soil and Water Conservation District, Oregon
Problem
Failing septic systems and agricultural runoff threatened the Clackamas and Molalla rivers, key drinking water sources.
Solution
A CWSRF Local Community Loan routed revolving funds through the conservation district directly to homeowners and farmers.
Impact
Over 90 property owners assisted since 2016, protecting two major waterways.
DWSRF - Otter Rock Water District, Oregon
Problem
Active coliform violations and leaking storage tanks left 150 households without reliable water.
Solution
A DWSRF loan combining 1% interest with principal forgiveness funded full system rehabilitation.
Impact
150 households now have reliable, compliant drinking water.
DWSRF - Falls City Water Systems Upgrade, Oregon
Problem
Falls City is a small, rural community of about 1,000 residents in Polk County. Parts of its drinking water system date to 1915, and much of it is still aging asbestos cement pipe. Main breaks are common because the pipe is degraded and pressure exceeds 125 psi in some places.
Solution
A $2,367,300 Drinking Water SRF award, including $1,292,082 in principal forgiveness and a $1,075,218 loan at 1% for 30 years, is replacing key sections of aging pipe. It also replaces approximately 450 water meters that have been in service for 25 years or more and makes improvements to the city's concrete reservoir.
Impact
The upgrades will cut water loss and main breaks, bring pressure down to safer levels, and give the city more accurate data on water use. Because the financing is affordable, residents can count on safe, reliable drinking water for decades to come.
DWSRF - Scravel Hill Water System Upgrade, Oregon
Problem
The Scravel Hill Water Cooperative serves about 300 people through 105 service connections in rural Linn County, just outside Albany. Its 50-year-old water system is failing. Asbestos cement pipe breaks and leaks constantly, the reservoir holds only one day of water at peak demand, and the pumping sites have no backup power.
Solution
A $1,116,500 Drinking Water SRF award, including $280,000 in principal forgiveness and an $836,500 loan at 2.68% for 30 years, is buying backup generators for all three pumping sites. It is also replacing aging supply lines, distribution pipe and service connections to homes, replacing meters where needed, and funding the design of a second reservoir.
Impact
Backup power will keep safe drinking water flowing to members during outages. New pipe will cut main breaks and water loss and remove the aging asbestos cement lines. New meters will give the cooperative accurate data on water use, and a second reservoir will add resilience during outages and peak demand.
Connecticut CWSRF – Old Lyme Beach Sewer Project
Problem
Miami Beach, Old Colony and Old Lyme Shores are small beach communities on the Long Island Sound shoreline in Old Lyme, Connecticut. Homes there rely on substandard septic systems that cause surface breakouts, send pollution into the Sound and threaten local drinking water wells.
Solution
The $70.3 million project builds new sanitary sewers in each community. It also builds a shared pump station, force main and odor control system that carry wastewater through East Lyme and Waterford to the New London Water Pollution Control Facility. Connecticut's Clean Water Fund is providing a $16 million small community grant and a $49.5 million loan at 2%. That financing includes $15 million in principal forgiveness, applied entirely to the shared infrastructure the three communities will use.
Impact
Replacing failing septic systems with sewers will cut pollution to Long Island Sound, end surface breakouts and better protect drinking water wells. Grants and affordable financing cover all but $4.8 million of the cost, so these small shoreline communities can take on a project of this size.
Campaign Supporters
These organizations have signed the Save the SRFs Campaign Pledge. To join as a supporter, please fill out the form below.
Take Action
Choose the path that fits your role and your organization’s policies.
The Save the SRFs campaign was built to extend beyond CIFA’s membership and is open to outside organizations, state and national associations, coalition partners, and allied advocacy groups that support this effort alongside CIFA members. If your organization shares an interest in protecting SRF capitalization funding, we invite you to join the campaign as an External Partner. Partner organizations can amplify campaign messaging, share state-specific data with their own networks, and add their voice to the call to protect affordable water infrastructure financing.
Both CIFA Members and non-members can participate in the Campaign Pledge.
Most Tier 1 and Tier 2 activity is education, sharing information and data with policymakers, not lobbying. Check your organization’s own policy if you’re unsure what’s permitted.
Tier 1
I can meet with Congress
Lead CIFA’s direct engagement with congressional offices in your state during the August district work period.
Tier 2
I can share my story or data
Provide project data and community examples that demonstrate real SRF impact back home.
Tier 3
Keep me informed
Receive updates and educational materials — no advocacy activity required.
Advocacy Resources
Type
Resource
The CIFA Advocacy Toolkit Includes:
One-Pager Template
Hill Talking Points
Email to Congress Template
Call Script
State Impact Data Insert Template
Guide: How to Email Your Congressional Delegation
Site Visit Project Tour Guide
10 Steps to Effective Advocacy
Testimony Preparation Guide
Thank You and Impact Report
Sources
1. CRS IF13177 — “FY2026 Appropriations for U.S. EPA Water Infrastructure Programs,” Congressional Research Service, updated March 19, 2026, Table 1.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13177
2. EPA FY 2026 Community Grants Program Final Implementation Guidance — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 2026.
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2026-05/fy26-community-grants-implementation-guidance.pdf
3. FY27 House bill — FY27 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, House Committee on Appropriations, June 3, 2026, p. 87–88.
4. CRS IF11724 — “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Infrastructure Programs and FY2021 Appropriations,” Congressional Research Service, January 2021, Table 1.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11724
5. Congressional Budget Office — “Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure, 1956 to 2023,” February 2025, p. 23, “Water utilities” category.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-02/60874-InfrastructureSpending.pdf
6. Senate Report 117-20 — “Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021,” 117th Congress.
https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/117th-congress/senate-report/20/1
7. U.S. EPA — “2022 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) Report to Congress.”
https://www.epa.gov/cwns/clean-watersheds-needs-survey-cwns-2022-report-and-data
8. U.S. EPA — “7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment (DWINSA).”
https://www.epa.gov/dwsrf/epas-7th-drinking-water-infrastructure-needs-survey-and-assessment