BALTIMORE – Those who love Chesapeake Bay are hopeful this week that despite President Donald Trump's promise to cut funding this year to help protect the bay, lawmakers will refuse to do that.

A subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee is expected to include $60 million for the Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program with $10 million of that allocated to grant programs to operate on-the-ground restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Last year the Bay received $73 million, and Peter Marx, federal affairs director for the Choose Clean Water Coalition, says since the president proposed slashing the budget, there's been a bipartisan effort to keep that from happening.

"President Trump's budget proposed zero for Chesapeake Bay restoration,” Marx points out. “From $73 (million) to zero, basically stopping the entire restoration and protection of Chesapeake Bay, which was horrifying to many of us. "

Marx says although nothing is set in stone, funding for the Chesapeake Bay Program is expected to be made public Monday or Tuesday.

Marx says without full funding, the progress that's been made to improve waterways will be jeopardized and possibly reversed. He cites the return of bay grasses as an example of a success story.

"It's a clear sign of increased water quality when these grasses increase,” he explains. “And last year we had almost 100,000 acres of the bay bottom covered in these bay grasses, which is the most since we started counting. "

Marx calls Trump's budget unrealistic and detrimental to the progress that has been made for rivers, streams and clean drinking water for many states including Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia.





get more stories like this via email

Many residents of southern West Virginia say the water flowing out of their taps is a brown or orange color and most continue to rely heavily on bottled water as a result.

Advocates want lawmakers to funnel more federal funds toward water and wastewater infrastructure projects in the region.

Natalia Rudiak, director of special projects for the nonprofit ReImagine Appalachia, said many residents drive miles to collect spring water or spend up to $100 a month on bottled water. She asserted Mountain State lawmakers are spending money distributed from the American Rescue Plan Act on other projects, instead of addressing the issue.

"That funding, millions of dollars, has gone into upgrading a baseball field at a university; it has gone to an entertainment center; it has gone to an out-of-state university in Ohio," Rudiak contended.

According to recent investigative reporting by the Gazette-Mail, the state's Water Development Authority has allowed more than $80 million of funds to be used for projects unrelated to water or sewage infrastructure.

An online petition by the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, the West Virginia Faith Collective and the coalfield advocacy group From Below is asking lawmakers to declare a state of emergency in order to provide residents with clean drinking water until proper infrastructure is in place.

Rudiak pointed out those who depend on well water or springs are also at risk.

"One of the health issues that we are seeing is people are getting sick from spring water that they're using," Rudiak observed.

The southern coalfields' water crisis has been exacerbated by recent storms and severe flooding. Rudiak pointed to recent flooding in which least two people died and tens of thousands were left without power.

"Unfortunately, the folks of southern West Virginia can't catch a break," Rudiak emphasized. "They've been hit by catastrophic flooding that is damaging main streets, and businesses, and homes."

According to a report from the West Virginia Office of Environmental Health Services, 65 water systems across the state are operating in marginal condition and 15 are classified as failing.


get more stories like this via email

Some Kentucky lawmakers want to weaken protections for waterways many residents depend on for drinking water.

Senate Bill 89, that would narrow the definition of which waters in Commonwealth are protected, has passed the Senate and is now in the Kentucky House.

A few years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that severely weakened the federal government's abilities to regulate water bodies and wetlands.

Supporters of the Kentucky bill say it falls in line with that decision and would eliminate mining industry permitting barriers.

But it could also pose public health risks for drinking water, said Kentucky Sierra Club Chapter Director Julia Finch.

"So that's really what we're concerned about," said Finch. "We don't want to see any kind of restriction of that definition that would end protections for other water systems, including our groundwater."

According to the Kentucky Geological Survey, more than 1.5 million residents are served by public water systems that rely on groundwater, and about 416,000 rely on wells or springs for water.

Lacking guardrails, water treatment costs could potentially increase.

Finch explained that local public water systems depend on the state to regulate and monitor pollution in streams and rivers that are used for drinking water.

"If we're talking about drinking water," said Finch, "there could be additional water treatment that has to occur, then that cost could then go directly to customers."

Finch pointed out that Kentucky is home to several Superfund and other industrial sites, and noted that some of those sites would no longer have to consider groundwater protections during the cleanup process.

"That's really scary," said Finch, "because Superfund sites are some of our most polluted and deadliest sites."

Under the bill, dumping pollution into headwaters or rain-dependent streams - also known as ephemeral streams - would no longer be prohibited, and the state would lose its ability to limit water pollution or require sampling for these types of waters.

Around 65% of Kentucky's more than 79,000 miles of streams and rivers are ephemeral, according to Environmental Protection Agency data.

A piece of Arizona legislation, with bipartisan backing, is aiming to bring better oversight and protections of groundwater, across five basins in rural Arizona.

The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Priya Sundareshan - D-Tucson - explained that the Rural Groundwater Management Act of 2025 would create water-management programs that would have a say over conservation efforts, and would strive to reduce groundwater use while improving the state of aquifers.

SB 1425, and its mirrored bill in the House, would also create local councils to monitor the basins.

Sundareshan said the bill is intended to protect folks from out-of-state entities that flock to Arizona for its lack of regulation, ultimately leaving communities dry.

"Residents whose wells are going dry, their foundations are cracking because the groundwater has been depleted so much that the aquifers are settling," said Sundareshan. "You have large-scale industrial agriculture that has moved in because of the complete lack of regulation."

Similar legislation failed last legislative session.

Sundareshan recalled that under the Republican majority at the state Legislature, the bill has not yet been heard in committee, and this week is the last week for such action.

She added that people's ability to continue living in small Arizona towns depends on water availability, and called on policymakers to act.

New data finds that most Arizonans - about 72% - believe inadequate water supply is a serious problem, according to the 2025 Conservation in the West Poll.

Sundareshan said the last time significant water legislation was passed in the state was in 1980, with the Groundwater Management Act.

"But it only really protected the urban areas, and it set up a process for further management of other areas in Arizona," said Sundareshan. "But it only created two tools - the active management area approach, and the other tool created is the INAs, the irrigation non-expansion areas."

INAs are created when the Arizona Department of Water Resources determines there is not enough groundwater in a given area to provide a "reasonably safe supply for irrigation," on cultivated lands, therefore having no need to establish an active management area.

Sundareshan said these tools cap the expansion of agricultural acreage in the state, but don't do much to manage the consumption of groundwater.




get more stories like this via email