Four experts weigh in about possible White House impacts on the Delaware River watershed

Editor’s note: We sent a three-question survey to 20 experts in the watershed for their insights in light of the current moves by the Trump administration and how those actions might affect the watershed. Of the 20, four responded. Here are their answers in full:

Daniel Van Abs, PhD, a former professor of professional practice in water resource policy at Rutgers University.

He is a former manager of water and watershed management in New Jersey state government and a Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners. The opinions here are his own and do not represent the views of any entities with which he is or has been affiliated.

1. What do you expect to be the concrete effects of the actions of the current administration as it defunds standing or planned environmental work?

It seems that everything is in play at the moment, making it very difficult to know what will happen. The power of the executive, the power of Congress (and their willingness to exert it), the power of the judiciary, and the willingness of the executive to question or ignore the powers of Congress and the judiciary, are all being tested.

We have seen prior administrations test some of these issues. I recall the beginning of the Reagan administration with James Watt in charge of the Department of the Interior and Anne Gorsuch in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency. Those were very dark times environmentally, but Congress was split and eventually a somewhat more even-handed leadership of environmental agencies occurred.

Because everything is shifting fast, my analysis can be considered a snapshot in time using a camera of some indeterminate fuzziness. What we can expect for at least the first two years of this term is that the Trump administration will test the boundaries of executive power, balanced against court decisions. However, they also have the option of Congressional action to reduce funding, change laws, prohibit agency actions, etc.

The Congressional route is slower but greatly reduces the potential for judicial opposition. However, action by Congress is constrained by the very thin margins in the House and the way the Senate rules work.

Funding reductions can be enormously disruptive. We have heard of potential cuts to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of two-thirds or more. What the general news media doesn’t discuss is what that could really mean; instead, they focus on specific steps such as reducing staff in Research & Development and such.

However, EPA’s FY2024 budget was just over $10 billion, of which $3.4 billion went to categorical grants (much of which helps states implement delegated federal programs), $1.4 billion to trust funds, and $1.2 billion to infrastructure financing. The operating budget for EPA itself was $4.2 billion, or roughly 40 percent of the total. So, a two-thirds reduction would require major cuts to the funds going out to the states, some of which is for the states to operate federal permitting programs (e.g., air, water, hazardous and solid waste). If states decide that they will no longer accept federal program delegation due to a lack of federal funding, then EPA would need more staff to operate these programs directly, requiring more (not less) EPA operational funding.

On the other hand, the recent decision by Congress to eliminate (or at least greatly reduce) earmarks (aka, “congressionally directed community projects” or “Christmas tree” items) might open up some funding for infrastructure. In recent years, a large chunk (more than half?) of federal funding for the State Revolving Funds (drinking water and clean water SRF) has been directly allocated by Congress to specific projects rather than going into a common pot for allocation by the states. The result is that communities with clout in Congress get the funds without competing for them, while other communities lose their chance at funding through the normal state program.

Assuming that the administration does manage to deeply cut funding and the courts either accept the cuts or are ignored by the administration, the result will be a major damage to environmental programs. Grant applicants or awardees will lose projects, SRF funds won’t be available for water utility asset management, critical lands won’t be preserved, waters won’t be monitored, etc. Perhaps not entirely, but enough to damage the entire program structure.

The long-term result is that it will take considerable time and effort to redevelop the existing programs. Some organizations won’t make it through to the other side, Congress likely will not restore all funding, people will migrate to other jobs and even fields, and so on. It took decades to build what we currently rely upon, so recovering will take years even in favorable times.

However, there is a real potential that the courts will force federal agencies to fund what has already been contracted, to not claw back funds that were already distributed to the states, and so on. Even with an administration focused on fast, disruptive action, there is a lot of inertia in any large bureaucracy. The result would be slower disruption, but not a full recovery.

2. What is your assessment of the overall protection of the watershed in light of the rollback of environmental protections?

We need to pay attention to the states. For the Delaware River Basin, it is the states that manage most of the environmental permit programs for water resources, though the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers handles the Section 404 wetlands permit program for all but New Jersey, which is delegated to handle that program. These state programs are authorized by state laws; state agencies can’t directly implement federal laws. Even if the federal government backs off, the states will retain their state laws and programs, for which they can increase permit fees to offset federal aid cuts. The major impact of a federal rollback will therefore be in wetlands protection (other than New Jersey) and in funds for environmental protection and restoration, infrastructure financing, and state aid. Again, we can’t expect the states to achieve everything they normally do if the federal government backs away. It will take time for states to readjust; the extent of that readjustment will depend on the politics of each state.

3. Looking to the future, what do you see five years from now?

Most importantly, in five years there will be another administration; otherwise, the nation will face a much greater problem than just environmental damages. We have no way of knowing what will take the place of the Trump administration in 2029. Frankly, we have no way of knowing what will happen in the 2026 Congressional elections. However, to extend my crystal ball beyond its normal powers, let me predict that the current administration and Congress will do so much so fast that it creates a backlash resulting in the shift of at least one house to the Democrats in the 2026 election. That seems to be the history of our country, where unified control results in an overreach, which in turn results in a political “course correction.” Where people decide in theory that they want radical change, they often change their minds when those changes become reality.

I expect the net result will be less environmental progress and some significant, permanent losses than we would not have had otherwise. The question is whether and to what extent we can recover. The current discussions about how much the national debt will increase (that it will increase seems taken for granted) will put major budget pressures on every succeeding administration. We cannot expect to easily recover from any extensive damages to environmental programs because there will be a constant scramble for funds and attention among myriad national issues. Therefore, I expect some programmatic damages will be essentially permanent, but we may find other ways to progress that use different approaches than the traditional.

Howard Neukrug, director of the Water Center at the University of Pennsylvania

1. What do you expect to be the concrete effects of the actions of the current administration as it defunds standing environmental practice?

I am the eternal optimist and my glass remains half full. Throughout the history of the Clean Water Act, there have been starts and stops, times with funding and times without, forward actions and pushbacks. Yet, the state of our rivers, while not yet at the goals we all seek, continues to improve over time. The current crisis, I believe, will be met by a strong reaction should things really start to degrade.

2. What is your assessment of the overall protection of the watershed in light of the rollback of environmental protections?

My biggest concern at the moment is the loss of human capital and expertise in the clean-up of our environment. It will take years, if not decades, to bring back the incredible level of professionalism and knowledge in our sector. On the other hand, there will be a new generation of talent and ideas and a renewed spark of passion for environmental innovations and improvements that will match every step backward this administration burdens us with.

3. Looking to the future, what do you see five years from now?

As mentioned above, I just hope it will only be five years to get us back on track.

David Hess, former secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection in the early 2000s and editor of the PA Environment Digest Blog

1. What do you expect to be the concrete effects of the actions of the current administration as it defunds standing environmental practice?

Defunding environmental protection programs states are administering for the feds will have a profound impact in a very bad way. Our DEP here receives $50 million to $60 million from the feds to administer programs, suddenly taking that away will cripple these core program.  They tried to take in during their first administration so I expect they will try again.

I think it all comes down to advocacy groups figuring out what is most important to them and developing a strategy to protect that funding or program. With water it’s a lot easier than air, I think.  

But the air program “reconsiderations” will put Pennsylvania and New Jersey at a disadvantage since they are doing away with programs like Good Neighbor and others. We’ll have to adopt more controls here.  But that’s an aside.

The key thing is: Don’t panic! Figure out what changes are being made and execute a plan to keep and expand what you want.

EPA is right, their action is “historic,” historically bad for people and the environment. Good for folks like shale gas drillers who can hold off giving clean water to communities like Dimock in Susquehanna County for 20+ years and politicians think it’s OK.

2. What is your assessment of the overall protection of the watershed in light of the rollback of environmental protections?

The job of protecting the water quality in the Delaware Watershed will, of necessity, shift to the states and the Delaware River Basin Commission. They need to be bolstered, supported and funded to do the job.

The specific issue EPA and others in the new administration keep bringing up is eliminating DRBC’s ban on fracking in the watershed. Folks have got to figure out quickly if that’s important to them and develop a strategy to deal with it. Allowing shale gas drilling will have a very profound impact on the people, landscape and water resources of the basin as it has everywhere else, when folks look at it honestly.

3. Looking to the future, what do you see five years from now?

Five years from now may be hard to answer because we’re being subjected to a “chaos” management style. Wait five minutes and things will change. It’s extremely hard to figure out five days ahead.

Benjamin Spinelli, executive director of the New Jersey Highlands Council

1. What do you expect to be the concrete effects of the actions of the current administration as it defunds standing environmental practice?

The issues will not only center around defunding current or planned work but in deregulation at the federal level. The federal government has been hijacked by extreme anti-government anti-regulation proponents who see environmental laws as nothing but an impediment to profits. Regulations will likely be rolled back, particularly as they apply to the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. There will be no Ccimate change regulations or policies, no funding for climate related programs and climate change denial will become the official position of the federal government. We are already seeing information being stripped from public facing websites that pertain to the science behind these issues. 

Additionally, the government infrastructure is being systematically purged of scientific talent and knowledge. Research and information that leads to “inconvenient” conclusions or may be at odds with this administrations desired actions will be abandoned or ignored. The combination of Lee Zeldin at EPA and Doug Burgam at the Department of Interior harkens a policy tact that will resemble the 1890’s era where government functions as an enabler of business interests and the interests of the wealthy and as the facilitator of the maximum exploitation of the nations resources for the benefit of the few rather than as a agent for promotion of the general health, safety, and welfare of the population. (Think “drill baby, drill.”)  They have been put into these positions precisely to implement this strategy. This will represent a major policy triumph for the American Legislative Exchange Council, Project 2025 and their allies who have been advocating for this approach to government for years — if not decades.

That being said, in this model of government, the state you live in makes a difference. NJ, NY, and PA have fairly strong environmental protections in place. NJ in particular is not overly reliant on either federal funding or federal regulation (although there is a great deal of cross-referencing the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act in state regulations). There will still be local programs and laws that are designed to protect resources. However, with the re-making of the federal courts through appointment of judges selected solely to back up the policies of this administration, restrictive regulations (and any regulation that impacts land use in particular) may be subject to challenge and measures that were formerly found to be appropriate may begin to be eliminated by court decisions that lean more towards individual property rights or preventing interference with commercial interests than what is currently settled law.      

2. What is your assessment of the overall protection of the watershed in light of the rollback of environmental protections?

One thing we can be certain of is that there will be a rollback of any enhanced federal protections that were implemented during the Biden Administration, in particular anything related to climate, carbon sequestration, or the extraction industries (mining and forestry). I would anticipate that any sites suitable for fracking in the Delaware Watershed would be opened for business (if the price of natural gas supports the practice). That has implications for water quality resulting from land clearing, groundwater contamination and wastewater disposal. 

Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act regulations that might apply to this activity will likely be withdrawn or go unenforced. Again, where you live makes a difference. New York City will continue to aggressively protect its 2,000-square-mile watershed in the Delaware headwaters, which will make a difference across the watershed. It will become more important to empower, fund, and properly resource agencies like the Highlands Council to maintain and enhance environmental protections. Whether or not we have the policy acumen and/or political will at the state level to understand and carry out these measures is questionable.

I don’t think that there will be an impact on SRF/Clean Water funds that protect water quality, but that’s an awful lot of money available to fund tax cuts instead of water infrastructure and might be a target. Unless something happens to that pot of money (which is a combination of federal and state funds) there will still be investments made in wastewater treatment and drinking water facilities that will protect water quality long-term. Protection of drinking water supplies and better handling of wastewater are probably two of the three biggest factors in protection of the Delaware watershed. They should continue to exist at current levels, or at least close to current levels.

The third factor, land use practices, will also remain fairly steady. I don’t see an acceleration of development likely as the warehouse demand has subsided and the watershed, particularly the upper portion of the watershed, is not a big target for residential development. Clearing of land and increased impervious surfaces are the big factors on the land use side. There could be a jump in the creation of data centers and solar farms, which would have been a threat anyway. Funding for restoration of degraded ecosystems and reforestation projects will likely go away, which will eliminate measures to improve protections. That means holding on to what we have and maintaining the status quo is probably the best we can expect and that will be a difficult proposition.           

3. Looking to the future, what do you see five years from now?

That’s too far to look ahead right now amidst this chaos. There are a lot of potential scenarios for the nation as a whole — many of them bad. I would expect that state and local level actions will continue to protect the area’s resources. More of the burden will be placed at the state and local level as the federal government will not be a reliable partner for any of these efforts. At its bleakest, federal regulations that support the Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Drinking Water and Endangered Species Acts will all be reduced or eliminated. Federal funding for environmental protection programs will not exist. The states already have limited budgets and finding the resources necessary to fill the gaps may be problematic.

Additionally, state-level regulations may be subject to court challenges and a judiciary that is increasingly antigovernment and pro-business and property rights in its makeup can very well handicap any measures that are inconsistent with federal policy.   

Elections have consequences and the results of the 2026 mid-terms will have a substantial role in determining what the next five years looks like. Right now, this administration is seeking to consolidate power in the executive branch and eliminate any effective checks and balances from the other branches of government. That would effectively lead to a dismantling of the administrative state that implements legislative intent, the loss of scientific research (also likely to be hampered through defunding educational institutions) and a shift of the financial burden of protection of the environment to the state level where the resources and the ability to cross jurisdictional boundaries are limited.

I believe this to be the direct intention of the policies that are currently being implemented by this administration and its allies. November 2026 may be when we see some checks on executive actions-or not. That will have a big impact on what kind of world we’ll be living in when 2030 arrives.