The Impact of SRF Earmarks
For decades, the Clean Water SRF (CWSRF) and the Drinking Water SRF (DWSRF) have been the government’s primary tool for financing water infrastructure, providing almost $230 billion for safe drinking water, clean water, and stormwater management projects through 2023.
In recent years, Congress has earmarked more than half of the funds appropriated for SRFs. These earmarks are distributed as grants instead of loans. Earmarks break the core feature that makes SRFs so effective: their ability to revolve.
See How Earmarks Weaken America's Infrastructure Funding Capacity
Over a 20 year period, states will experience a net loss of $19.4 billion if earmarks continue at their recent levels. That’s enough to finance approximately 5,700 projects.
Earmarks reduce long-term funding in 39 states over 20 years, and ALL states lose resources for technical assistance, program administration, support to state and local drinking water staff, and additional subsidies—the primary affordability tool for small, rural, and under-resourced communities.
Report Last Updated: 04/13/2026
SRF Earmark Data by Congressional Committee
The factsheets here show how earmarks affect the states represented by the members of each committee. Select a committee to view the data for its members’ states.
Earmarking SRFs is not a marginal policy choice—it is a structural change.
Policymakers face a clear decision: preserve the revolving model that has sustained water infrastructure investment for decades, or continue carving out funds for earmarks and accept a steady erosion of long-term capacity. The evidence in our report shows that earmarks are not a neutral addition to SRFs. They fundamentally degrade how the programs function.
The following recommendations are designed to protect the revolving model while addressing Congress’s continued use of earmarks:
Stop earmarking SRFs.
Fund earmarks through separate appropriations.
Use loans, not grants, for earmarked projects.
Deduct earmarks from the receiving state’s allotment.
Require ongoing impact assessments.
Increase visibility of SRF-supported projects.
Water infrastructure requires steady, compounding investment. Earmarks do the opposite. Continuing to earmark the SRFs will leave states with less funding, fewer projects, less affordable water services, and a weaker system over time.
Have questions or interested in learning more? Reach out today!
Janet Pritchard
Director of Water Infrastructure Policy
Ekta Patel
Senior Policy Analyst
Denise Schmidt
Director of Water