U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2026 President’s Budget Request: In Brief

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2026

President’s Budget Request: In Brief

June 23, 2025

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

R48575

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2026 President’s Budget Request: In Brief

Contents

FY2026 Budget Request.................................................................................................................. 1

Staffing Levels .......................................................................................................................... 2

FY2026 Requested EPA Appropriations Account Levels ............................................................... 3

Selected Funding Changes for FY2026 ........................................................................................... 4

EPA Water Infrastructure Funding Programs ............................................................................ 5

Selected Categorical Grants ...................................................................................................... 7

State and Local Air Quality Management Grants ............................................................... 7

Section 106 Water Pollution Control Grants ....................................................................... 7

Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants .................................................................................. 8

EPA and State Perspectives ................................................................................................. 8

Hazardous Substance Superfund ............................................................................................... 9

Figures

Figure 1. EPA Requested and Regular Enacted Appropriations, FY2017-FY2026 ........................ 2

Figure 2. EPA FTE Ceilings, FY2017-FY2025 Enacted and FY2026 Requested........................... 2

Figure 3. EPA Appropriations by Account, FY2017-FY2025 Enacted and FY2026

Requested ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Tables

Table 1. EPA Appropriations Accounts: Comparison of FY2025 Regular Enacted

Appropriations and the President’s FY2026 Budget Request ...................................................... 4

Table A-1. Proposed Elimination of EPA Programs in the President’s FY2026 Budget

Request ....................................................................................................................................... 12

Appendixes

Appendix. Proposed EPA Presidential Budget Request Program Eliminations ............................ 12

Contacts

Author Information........................................................................................................................ 14

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2026 President’s Budget Request: In Brief

I

n May 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its initial budget

summary for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026—the FY 2026 EPA Budget in Brief (BIB).1 The FY2026

BIB proposes overall funding levels reflecting the President’s budget request for EPA for

FY2026, which begins on October 1, 2025. In total, the FY2026 budget request for EPA is $4.16

billion. Congress provides regular annual appropriations to EPA within the Department of the

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts, which are sometimes included

in a consolidated, or omnibus, appropriations act.

As Congress debates appropriations for EPA for FY2026, Members could consider account and

program area funding level requests from the Administration, including changes in funding levels

compared to prior fiscal years as well as EPA’s proposed elimination of certain programs. This

report provides general information on the President’s budget request for EPA for FY2026; shows

historical EPA appropriations trends; describes proposed funding changes in each of EPA’s

appropriations accounts compared to FY2025; and provides selected examples of programs with

proposed major funding decreases, according to EPA’s BIB.

FY2026 Budget Request

For FY2026, the President requested $4.16 billion in budget authority for EPA, $4.97 billion

(54.45%) less than EPA FY2025 enacted appropriations of $9.14 billion.2 The Full-Year

Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (P.L. 119-4) generally provided

appropriations for FY2025 for EPA (among other agencies) at the same rates and under the same

terms and conditions as enacted in Division E, Title II, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,

2024 (P.L. 118-42), unless otherwise specified.3 From the beginning of FY2025 to the enactment

of P.L. 119-4, EPA operated under the terms and conditions of two other continuing resolutions

(CRs), generally at FY2024 regular enacted levels.4

Division J, Title VI, of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58), enacted on

November 15, 2021, provided supplemental appropriations to EPA for FY2022 and advance

appropriations for FY2023-FY2026, including $12.01 billion for FY2026. Including IIJA FY2025

advance appropriations, FY2025 total enacted appropriations for EPA were $21.14 billion.

See Figure 1 for EPA regular annual requested and enacted appropriations for the past 10 fiscal

years. This figure does not include $41.6 billion in one-time appropriations for EPA for FY2022

provided in P.L. 117-169, the measure commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act

(IRA).

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), FY 2026 EPA Budget in Brief, May 2025,

http://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-05/fy-2026-epa-bib.pdf (hereinafter FY2026 Budget in Brief). See

also Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Technical Supplement to the 2026 Budget: Appendix, pp. 945-964,

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/appendix_fy2026.pdf.

2 FY2026 Budget in Brief; P.L. 119-4.

3 For more information, see CRS Report R48517, Section-by-Section Summary of the Full-Year Continuing

Appropriations Act, 2025 (Division A of P.L. 119-4), coordinated by Drew C. Aherne.

4 P.L. 118-83 and P.L. 118-158.

Congressional Research Service

1

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2026 President’s Budget Request: In Brief

Figure 1. EPA Requested and Regular Enacted Appropriations, FY2017-FY2026

Source: CRS using information from the Congressional Record; House, Senate, and conference reports; and the

Environmental Protection Agency’s FY2026 Budget in Brief.

Notes: IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58). Enacted amounts reflect supplemental

appropriations and rescissions, including IIJA advance appropriations for FY2023-FY2026 totaling $60.89 billion.

FY2022 amounts do not include supplemental Inflation Reduction Act (P.L. 117-169) appropriations of $41.5

billion. FY2025 amounts are amounts provided by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act,

2025 (P.L. 119-4).

Staffing Levels

The President’s FY2026 budget request also proposes to reduce staffing levels at EPA. According

to EPA, the requested funding would support 12,856 full-time equivalents (FTEs), which is 1,274

less than 2025 staffing levels.5 See Figure 2 for EPA FTE levels since FY2017.

Figure 2. EPA FTE Ceilings, FY2017-FY2025 Enacted and FY2026 Requested

Source: CRS using information from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) FY2026 Budget in Brief.

Note: Other EPA funding sources, such as fees and taxes, may support additional FTEs.

5 FY2026 Budget in Brief, p. 3.

Congressional Research Service

2

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2026 President’s Budget Request: In Brief

FY2026 Requested EPA Appropriations Account

Levels

Funding for discretionary spending is annually appropriated to EPA among 10 statutory accounts

established by Congress over time. These include State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG),

Environmental Programs and Management (EPM), Hazardous Substance Superfund

(“Superfund”), Science and Technology (S&T), Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund,

Buildings and Facilities, Office of the Inspector General, Inland Oil Spill Program, Hazardous

Waste Electronic Manifest System Fund, and Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation

Program accounts.

See Figure 3 for the distribution of total appropriations (including regular and IIJA supplemental

appropriations) among EPA’s accounts for the past 10 fiscal years and for the FY2026 President’s

budget request. Note that the figure does not include $41.5 billion in FY2022 emergency

supplemental appropriations for EPA provided in the IRA for FY2022 or $12.01 billion in IIJA

advance appropriations for FY2026 (advance appropriations are not typically included in a

President’s budget request).

Figure 3. EPA Appropriations by Account, FY2017-FY2025 Enacted and FY2026

Requested

Source: CRS using information from the Congressional Record; House, Senate, and conference committee

reports; and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) FY2026 Budget in Brief.

Notes: Enacted amounts reflect rescissions and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58)

supplemental appropriations. FY2025 amounts are amounts provided in the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations

and Extensions Act, 2025 (P.L. 119-4). FY2022 amounts do not include one-time Inflation Reduction Act (P.L.

117-169) supplemental appropriations. FY2026 amounts do not include $12.01 billion for EPA in IIJA advance

appropriations, which are not typically included in a President’s budget request. S&T = Science and Technology;

STAG = State and Tribal Assistance Grants; EPM = Environmental Programs and Management; Req. = Request.

The President’s budget request for EPA for FY2026 proposes decreases in eight appropriations

accounts and no change for two accounts, compared to FY2025 regular annual appropriations.

The request includes no changes for the Office of the Inspector General and the Hazardous Waste

Electronic Manifest System Fund accounts.6 Proposed account decreases range from $4.3 million

for the Inland Oil Spill Program account to $3.64 billion for the STAG account. Percentage

decreases range from a 13.8% decrease in the Buildings and Facilities account to an 88.9%

6 The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Fund Account is funded through user fees.

Congressional Research Service

3

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2026 President’s Budget Request: In Brief

decrease in the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program account, compared to

FY2025 regular annual appropriations.

See Table 1 for a detailed comparison of account levels for EPA FY2025 regular enacted

appropriations and the President’s FY2026 budget request.

Table 1. EPA Appropriations Accounts: Comparison of FY2025 Regular Enacted

Appropriations and the President’s FY2026 Budget Request

In Millions of Dollars, Before Transfers

FY2025

Regular

Appropriations

FY2026

President’s

Budget

Dollars

Change

Percent

Change

756.1

500.8

-255.3

-33.8%

3,195.0

2,481.7

-713.3

-22.3%

Inspector General

43.3

43.3

0.0

0.0%

Buildings and Facilities

40.7

35.1

-5.6

-13.8%

Hazardous Substance Superfund

537.7

282.8

-255.0

-47.4%

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund

89.2

47.9

-41.3

-46.3%

Inland Oil Spill Program

Account

Science and Technology

Environmental Programs and Management (EPM)b

20.7

16.4

-4.3

-20.8%

State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)a

4,380.3

744.8

-3,635.4

-83.0%

Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation

Program

72.3

8.00

-64.3

-88.9%

Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System

Fundc

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0%

Source: CRS, using information from the Congressional Record; House, Senate, and conference committee

reports; and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) FY2026 Budget in Brief.

Notes:

a. In addition to regular appropriations, the Inflation Reduction Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-169) provided EPA with

$11.62 billion in advance appropriations within the STAG account for each of FY2025 and FY2026.

b. In addition to regular appropriations, IIJA provided EPA with $386.8 million in advance appropriations

within the EPM account for each of FY2025 and FY2026.

c. The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Fund is supported through user fees.

Selected Funding Changes for FY2026

The President’s budget request for EPA for FY2026 includes reductions in funding for nearly all

program areas. Some programs would receive an increase or no change compared to FY2025

regular enacted appropriations. One program area, Homeland Security within the S&T account,

would receive $36.3 million, a $1.6 million increase compared to FY2025 enacted amounts. The

budget request also proposes $10.0 million for new Workforce Reshaping program projects

within the S&T and EPM accounts. See EPA’s FY2026 Budget in Brief for more information.7

The sections below provide selected examples of areas where the President’s budget request

proposes decreased funding compared to FY2025 enacted appropriations. The examples include

the four largest proposed program project decreases: the Clean Water and Drinking Water State

7 FY2026 Budget in Brief, pp. 57-58.

Congressional Research Service

4

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2026 President’s Budget Request: In Brief

Revolving Funds, selected Categorical Grants, and Superfund Remedial.8 Within Categorial

Grants, the examples highlight the program project areas with the three largest proposed

decreases compared to FY2025 enacted appropriations.

The budget request also proposes eliminating a range of EPA programs and providing no funding

for these programs for FY2026.9 These programs are listed in the Appendix.

EPA Water Infrastructure Funding Programs10

The President’s FY2026 budget request proposes funding decreases to the Clean Water State

Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) programs.

Recent appropriations for these programs have included both regular appropriations and

supplemental appropriations, particularly from the IIJA. Recent appropriations acts (FY2020FY2025) provided annual amounts of $1.64 billion for the CWSRF and $1.13 billion for the

DWSRF. IIJA provided supplemental appropriations between FY2022 and FY2026 totaling

$12.71 billion for the CWSRF and $15.71 billion for the DWSRF.11

The President’s FY2026 budget proposal would provide $155.0 million for the CWSRF program

and $150.0 million for the DWSRF program.12 This proposal would reduce the regular CWSRF

appropriation by 90.5% and the regular DWSRF appropriation by 86.7% compared with annual

appropriations in recent years. The final year of IIJA supplemental appropriations (FY2026) for

the SRF programs would compensate for the effect of these reductions (to some degree), as the

CWSRF and DWSRF programs are scheduled to receive $2.83 billion and $3.40 billion,

respectively, in IIJA funding.

The President’s budget request states that the proposed level of funding “reflects a return of SRFs

to their intended structure of funds revolving at the state level, encouraging states to take

responsibility of funding their own water infrastructure projects.”13 This perspective is consistent

with some of the arguments presented by policymakers when the CWSRF was established. When

the CWSRF program was created in 1987, Congress intended for CWSRF appropriations to be

phased out by FY1995, marking a transition to full state and local financing for wastewater

infrastructure projects.14 State CWSRF programs were to be sustained by loan repayments to the

state fund after that date.15

8 FY2026 Budget in Brief, pp. 58-59.

9 FY2026 Budget in Brief, p. 56.

10 This section was authored by Jonathan Ramseur, Specialist in Environmental Policy.

11 States are required to use a certain portion of these supplemental funds to address “emerging contaminants.” In

addition, IIJA provided $15.00 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program for lead service line

replacement. For more information, see CRS Report R46892, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): Drinking

Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, by Elena H. Humphreys and Jonathan L. Ramseur.

12 FY2026 Budget in Brief, p. 47. See also Office of Management and Budget, Technical Supplement to the 2026

Budget: Appendix, pp. 950-953, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/appendix_fy2026.pdf.

13 FY2026 Budget in Brief, p. 47.

14 See, for example, Rep. Henry J. Nowak, “Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1, Water Quality Act of 1987,” House

Debate on H.R. 1, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 133, no. 3 (January 8, 1987), pp. H174-H178.

15 The Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4) authorized appropriations for the newly created Clean Water State

Revolving Fund program through FY1994.

Congressional Research Service

5

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2026 President’s Budget Request: In Brief

Congress created the DWSRF program in 1996, modeling the program after the CWSRF.16 When

Congress created the program, policymakers authorized appropriations through FY2003, stating

this funding would be “sufficient to cover the capital investments in treatment needed to comply

with Federal health standards.”17

Almost four decades after the creation of the CWSRF (and three decades after the DWSRF), the

intended shift of the SRF programs to a full state responsibility has not occurred, and Congress

has continued to provide appropriations to support water infrastructure activities.

A number of factors may have played a role in these continued appropriations. A key factor

involves pressure to continue—and, some would argue, increase—federal funding due, in part, to

the magnitude of the wastewater and drinking water infrastructure needs estimates compared with

annual federal funding.

EPA prepares needs estimates using survey data compiled by the states. The most recent needs

estimates (2023) for drinking water infrastructure indicate that public water systems need to

invest at least $625.00 billion (in 2021 dollars) in infrastructure improvements over 20 years to

ensure the provision of safe drinking water and compliance with federal standards.18 EPA’s most

recent wastewater needs assessment (2024) estimated national wastewater infrastructure needs of

$630.00 billion over 20 years (in 2022 dollars).19

If Congress decides to reduce the appropriations for the SRF programs at the FY2026 requested

levels, it is uncertain whether state and local governments would be able to increase their

spending to make up for this decreased funding.

Another factor may involve varied and changing perspectives regarding the roles the federal

government and state and local governments should play in funding local wastewater

infrastructure. A 2025 analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicates that these

respective roles have changed over time.20 For example, in the 10 years prior to the creation of the

CWSRF (i.e., 1977-1986), the federal government contributed, on average, 32% of total, annual

spending on water infrastructure. State and local governments contributed the remaining 68% of

spending. The federal contribution decreased after the establishment of the SRF program. Over

the past 10 years, the federal contribution of water infrastructure spending was, on average, 8%.

If Congress decides to reduce the appropriations for the SRF programs at the FY2026 requested

levels, the federal spending contribution would decrease further. Some policymakers and

stakeholders may argue this contribution should remain consistent or increase, particularly in the

context of the estimated infrastructure needs. Others may argue that the federal spending

contribution to local water infrastructure should decrease further.

16 For more information, see CRS Report RL31243, Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): A Summary of the Act and Its

Major Requirements, by Elena H. Humphreys.

17 U.S. Congress, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Safe Drinking Water Amendments Act, Report on

S. 1316, 104th Cong., November 7, 1995, S.Rept. 104-169, p. 11.

18 EPA, 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/

documents/2023-04/Final_FAQ_DWINSA_4.4.23.v1.pdf.

19 EPA, 2022 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey—Report to Congress, 2024, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/

documents/2024-05/2022-cwns-report-to-congress.pdf.

20 Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure, 1956 to 2023,

2025, Supplemental Tables, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60874. For more discussion, see CRS Report R48565,

Wastewater Infrastructure Funding: Background and Affordability Issues, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.

Congressional Research Service

6

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2026 President’s Budget Request: In Brief

Selected Categorical Grants21

The President’s FY2026 budget request proposes to eliminate 19 of the 22 categorical grants

included under the STAG Account, for a total reduction of approximately $1.00 billion.22 The

three grants proposed to be continued are Tribal Air Quality Management, Underground Injection

Control, and the Tribal General Assistance Program. Of the 19 categorical grants proposed for

elimination, three of them represent about 63% of the total proposed reduction in funding.23

These include the State and Local Air Quality Management Grants, the Section 106 Water

Pollution Control Grants, and the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants. Each of these categorical

grants provides funding for state programs that implement major requirements of the Clean Air

Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act (CWA).

State and Local Air Quality Management Grants

The largest of the categorical grants proposed for elimination is the State and Local Air Quality

Management Grants, which received appropriations of $235.6 million for FY2025.24 This

program provides grants to state and local air pollution control agencies under CAA Sections 103

and 105.25 Under the CAA, state and local agencies have the primary responsibility for

implementing clean air programs, including air permitting, monitoring, and enforcement.26

Federal grants fund 25%-98% of staff positions at various state and local air agencies.27 These

grants provide funding for analysis and planning for attainment and maintenance of the national

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), emission reduction programs, improvement of visibility

in U.S. national parks and wilderness areas (Class I areas), and the operation, repair, and

maintenance of air monitors.28

Section 106 Water Pollution Control Grants

Title I of the 1972 CWA established the Section 106 Water Pollution Control Grant Program,

which received appropriations of $225.4 million for FY2025.29 CWA Section 106 authorizes EPA

to provide grants to states, territories, and interstate agencies to assist in administering CWA

programs for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution.30

21 This section was authored by Laura Gatz, Specialist in Environmental Policy, and Omar Hammad, Analyst in

Environmental Policy.

22 FY2026 Budget in Brief, p. 55.

23

FY2026 Budget in Brief, p. 55.

24 FY2026 Budget in Brief, p. 55.

25 Section 103 (42 U.S.C. §7403) authorizes the EPA Administrator to “make grants to air pollution control agencies”

to conduct “research… relating to the causes, effects… and control of air pollution” and “make training grants to

personnel of air pollution control agencies.” Section 105 (42 U.S.C. §7405) authorizes the EPA Administrator to make

“grants for support of air pollution planning and control.”

26 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.

27 National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), “Testimony of [NACAA] Submitted to the House

Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Regarding the FY 2026

Budget for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” April 4, 2025, https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/

House-Testimony-FY-2026-NACAA.pdf (hereinafter: NACAA, Testimony on EPA FY2026 Budget).

28 EPA, Fiscal Year 2025: Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, Tab 11: State

and Tribal Assistance Grants 2024, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/fy25-cj-11-stag.pdf.

29 P.L. 92-500; FY2026 Budget in Brief, p. 55.

30 33 U.S.C. §1256. In 1987, Congress amended the Clean Water Act (CWA) to include provisions that allow EPA to

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

7

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2026 President’s Budget Request: In Brief

These grants support state efforts to implement major requirements of the CWA, including efforts

to monitor and assess water quality, develop and review water quality standards, list impaired

waters and develop total maximum daily loads (i.e., waterbody-specific plans to achieve water

quality standards), and administer and enforce CWA permits.31

Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants

Congress established the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program through the 1987

CWA amendments to explicitly address nonpoint source pollution (i.e., diffuse pollution such as

runoff from agricultural or residential areas).32 Nonpoint source pollution is not regulated under

the statute, but EPA and others recognize that it is a major contributor to the nation’s surface

water pollution.33

Section 319 requires states to develop and implement nonpoint source management programs and

authorizes EPA to award Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants to states, territories, and tribes to

assist them in implementing these programs (e.g., through funding projects to reduce nonpoint

source pollution and restore impaired water bodies).34 The Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants

program received appropriations of $174.3 million in FY2025.35

EPA and State Perspectives

In presenting the agency’s reasoning for the proposed elimination of 19 categorical grants in the

FY2026 Budget Request, EPA argues that, “with many of these statutes having been on the books

for several decades, states and local governments are more than capable to fund their own

programs in compliance with the law.”36 EPA further states that “these reductions promote

cooperative federalism to empower states to achieve primary enforcement authority for these

grant programs, while also encouraging states to innovate and find more efficient ways to meet

their responsibilities under delegated authority.”37

In its May 2025 letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee chair, which provided overviews

of its discretionary budget request, the Administration also provided its rationale for eliminating

treat an Indian tribe in a manner similar to a state for the purpose of providing Section 106 funding. (P.L. 100-4; 33

U.S.C. §1377.) Since 1987, a portion of CWA Section 106 funding has been set aside and allocated to EPA regional

offices to make allotments to eligible tribes.

31 EPA, “Grants for State and Interstate Agencies under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act,” https://www.epa.gov/

water-pollution-control-section-106-grants/grants-state-and-interstate-agencies-under-section-106. Section 106 funds

cannot be used for construction, operation, or maintenance of wastewater treatment plants, or for activities financed by

other federal grants. The CWA requires states, territories, and interstate agencies to expend at least as much as they

spent on their pollution control programs in 1971. This contribution is often referred to as the maintenance of effort

(MOE). However, according to EPA, many states, territories and interstates expend amounts well above the MOE.

32 P.L. 100-4, Title III.

33 EPA, “Basic Information about Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution,” https://www.epa.gov/nps/basic-informationabout-nonpoint-source-nps-pollution.

34 33 U.S.C. §1329. CWA Sections 319(h) and (i) provide that grants for nonpoint source management program

implementation and for groundwater-protection specific activities have a no less than 40% and 50% nonfederal cost

share, respectively. In addition, Section 319(h) limits administrative costs, requires an MOE, and requires a

demonstration of progress in the year preceding the grant award.

35

FY2026 Budget in Brief, p. 55.

36 FY2026 Budget in Brief, p. 39.

37 FY2026 Budget in Brief, p. 39.

Congressional Research Service

8

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2026 President’s Budget Request: In Brief

the categorical grants.38 In addition to the points included in the FY2026 Budget Request, the

Administration also stated that “EPA’s Categorical Grant programs have become a crutch for

States at the expense of taxpayers—many of whom receive no benefit from these grants.”39

State environmental agency coalitions and associations have issued letters calling on Congress to

“provide funding leadership that shares the cost of implementing our programs with states”

noting that “federal funding for implementation, referred to as Categorical Grants, has remained

static for two decades, despite historic inflation and the rising costs to deliver the cleanest air,

water, and land.”40

The Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, in a letter to EPA Administrator Zeldin, noted

that “funding directed to air agencies–including State and Local Air Quality Management Grants

under CAA Sections 103 and 105–must be adequate to meet historic CAA obligations.”41 In

written testimony submitted to the House Appropriations Committee regarding the FY2026

budget for EPA, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies argued that reductions in federal

funding could, among other things, slow the permitting processes, potentially delaying economic

development.42

The Association of Clean Water Administrators similarly provided written testimony to the House

Appropriations Committee urging increases in funding for CWA Sections 106 and 319 grants, as

well as for geographic programs, noting that “as the Administration works to reorganize and

downsize the federal government, robust appropriations for state programs are even more critical

than ever as states consider the most efficient ways to implement the CWA.”43 They further

asserted that a “reduction or elimination of dedicated funding for states to implement the CWA

places an undue financial burden on state agencies,” could “lead to decreased staffing, technical

expertise, and increased infrastructure needs straining already limited state budgets,” and

“threatens the ability of the states to effectively safeguard water resources, protect public health,

and meet statutory obligations.”44

Hazardous Substance Superfund45

Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, to authorize the federal government to clean up contaminated

sites in the United States and to make the “potentially responsible parties” (PRPs) connected to

38 Letter from Russell T. Vought, OMB Director, to Honorable Susan Collins, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair,

May 2, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Fiscal-Year-2026-Discretionary-BudgetRequest.pdf (hereinafter May 2, 2025 Letter).

39 May 2, 2025 Letter, p. 15.

40 The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), “Coalition Letter to Congressional Leaders on the Importance of

Federal Funding to State Environmental Agencies,” https://www.ecos.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/State-AssnFunding-Letter-3_12_24-sent.pdf. The letter was also signed on by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies

(NACAA), the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA), the Association of Clean Water

Administrators (ACWA), the National Association of Wetland Managers, and the Groundwater Protection Council,

among others.

41 AAPCA, “Letter to Administrator Zeldin,” January 31, 2025, https://cleanairact.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/

AAPCA-Letter-to-Administrator-Zeldin-01-31-2025-FINAL.pdf.

42 NACAA, Testimony on EPA FY2026 Budget.

43 Letter from ACWA to House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Other Related

Agencies, April 4, 2025, https://www.acwa-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Written-Testimony-FY-2026-FiscalAppropriations-v2.pdf (hereinafter ACWA Testimony on FY2026 Appropriations).

44 ACWA Testimony on FY2026 Appropriations.

45 This section was authored by Lance Larson, Analyst in Environmental Policy.

Congressional Research Service

9

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2026 President’s Budget Request: In Brief

those sites financially liable for the cleanup costs.46 For eligible sites without financially viable

PRPs, CERCLA authorized the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund to provide funding

for cleanup actions. EPA administers and oversees the remediation of sites under the Superfund

program, in coordination with the states in which the sites are located.47

Prior to the enactment of CERCLA, Congress debated how to fund contaminated sites without

viable PRPs and how to assign financial responsibility for remediation in a fair manner. As

enacted in 1980, CERCLA authorized Superfund excise taxes on crude oil, imported petroleum

products, and domestic chemical feedstocks.48 These taxes accounted for most of the receipts for

the Superfund Trust Fund until the taxing authority expired at the end of 1995.

Since the taxes expired, the Superfund Trust Fund was primarily financed with annual

appropriation transfers from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury, until Congress reauthorized

two of the taxes in the 117th Congress.49 In addition to these taxes and annual appropriations, the

Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust fund receives revenue from cost recoveries from PRPs,

fines and penalties for violations of CERCLA, and interest on the balance of the trust fund. In the

past, these revenues have generally represented a smaller contribution compared to annual

appropriations and Superfund tax receipts.

The President’s FY2026 BIB requests decreased appropriations for the Hazardous Substance

Superfund (Superfund) account (Table 1). Within the Superfund account, the Superfund Cleanup

program area includes line items for four program projects associated with EPA’s response

authorities, including the Emergency Response and Removal, EPA Emergency Preparedness,

Federal Facilities, and Remedial program projects.

For several years leading up to the reauthorization of the Superfund taxes in the 117th Congress,

annual appropriations to the Superfund account were approximately $1.0 billion. The Remedial

program project has generally been the largest portion, consisting of approximately half of that

total appropriation. The revenues collected from the Superfund taxes and the $3.50 billion

supplemental appropriation in the IIJA have provided a relative increase from past funding levels.

EPA has reported that the availability of those additional funds has allowed EPA to address new

and ongoing construction projects at over 100 eligible sites.50

According to EPA’s FY2026 BIB, the agency plans to use the projected $1.60 billion from the

Superfund tax receipts, collected in FY2025, to partially or fully fund two program projects in the

Superfund Cleanup program area, namely, the Remedial program project and the Emergency

46 42 U.S.C. §§9601 et seq.

47 For more information, see CRS Report R41039, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act, by David M. Bearden.

48 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11982, The Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund, by Anthony A.

Cilluffo and Lance N. Larson.

49 Enacted November 15, 2021, Section 80201 of Title II of Division H of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

(P.L. 117-58) reauthorized the Superfund chemicals excise tax through December 31, 2031, at double the rates that

were in effect in 1995. Additionally, Division J, Title VI provided $3.5 billion in emergency appropriations from the

Superfund Trust Fund through a transfer from the General Fund to increase resources for Superfund remedial actions

while the reinstated excise tax ramped up. Section 13601 in Part 6 of Subtitle D of Title I of the Inflation Reduction Act

(P.L. 117-169), permanently reauthorized the Superfund petroleum excise tax, increased the rate, and provided for

annual inflation adjustments. The effective dates for these tax provisions are July 1, 2022, and January 1, 2023, for P.L.

117-58 and P.L. 117-169, respectively.

50 EPA, Superfund Sites with New Construction Projects to Receive Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding, 2025,

https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-sites-new-construction-projects-receive-bipartisan-infrastructure-lawfunding.

Congressional Research Service

10

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2026 President’s Budget Request: In Brief

Response and Removal program project.51 For FY2026, EPA did not request annual

appropriations for the Remedial program project. EPA anticipates funding this program project

entirely with the projected Superfund tax receipts.52 Additionally, EPA plans to fund the

Emergency Response and Removal program project with both annual appropriations and

Superfund tax receipts, and requested $47.3 million, a decrease of $11.9 million from FY2025.53

EPA requested $21.6 million to carry out their Federal Facilities program project and $7.7 million

to carry out their EPA Emergency Preparedness program project.

The projected $1.60 billion collected during FY2025 from the Superfund tax receipts is

approximately 26% less than the $2.17 billion EPA estimated to be collected.54 Similarly for the

prior year, the FY2025 budget request reported FY2024 collections available from the Superfund

taxes as approximately $1.20 billion, roughly half of the Superfund tax receipts estimated in the

FY2024 budget request (estimated as $2.50 billion).55 Given that EPA intends to continue to rely

upon the Superfund tax receipts to carry out portions of the Superfund program, discrepancies

between the actual and estimated Superfund tax receipts collected may present future funding

uncertainties for planning and implementing Superfund programs relying upon those receipts.

The extent to which programs within the Superfund account should be funded by Superfund tax

receipts and annual appropriations has historically been and remains a topic for congressional

consideration. In addition, the duration and costs of environmental cleanup at any particular

individual site depend on a number of site-specific factors, so total cleanup costs are

approximations.

The adequacy of funding for all sites addressed under the Superfund program depends on a

variety of factors, including the total number of sites addressed under the program and the need of

funding based on site-specific cleanup decisions.56 Thus, total funding needs would be dependent

on the intended scope and objectives of the program, and the adequacy of Superfund tax receipts

and annual appropriations to meet total funding needs presents a policy question for Congress.

51 EPA’s FY2026 budget request under the Trump Administration to partially or fully fund certain elements of the

Superfund program using the Superfund tax receipts reflects a similar EPA policy to rely upon Superfund tax receipts

stated in EPA’s FY2025 budget request under the Biden Administration. See EPA, Fiscal Year 2025 Justification of

Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, Tab 08: Superfund, 2024, p. 127, https://www.epa.gov/

system/files/documents/2024-04/fy25-cj-08-superfund.pdf.

52According to EPA’s FY2026 Budget in Brief, “EPA is fully transitioning the Superfund Remedial Program to

Superfund taxes to conduct critical pre-construction projects, continue ongoing construction projects, and initiate new

remedial work at National Priority List (NPL) sites to address contaminants including lead and per- and polyfluoroalkyl

substances (PFAS).” FY2026 Budget in Brief, p. 5.

53 EPA’s FY2026 Budget in Brief does not specify the amount of Superfund tax receipts used for this program.

54 EPA, Fiscal Year 2025 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, Tab 08:

Superfund, 2024, p. 126, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/fy25-cj-08-superfund.pdf.

EPA, Fiscal Year 2024 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, Tab 08:

Superfund, 2023, p. 118, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-04/fy24-cj-08-superfund.pdf.

56 Government Accountability Office, Superfund: Many Factors Can Affect Cleanup of Sites Across the U.S., GAO-25108408, April 2025.

Congressional Research Service

11

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2026 President’s Budget Request: In Brief

Appendix. Proposed EPA Presidential Budget

Request Program Eliminations

Table A-1. Proposed Elimination of EPA Programs in the President’s FY2026 Budget

Request

FY2025 Regular

Enacted Budget

Authority

Program

(In Millions)

Categorical Grants

Beaches Protection

9.7

Brownfields

46.2

Environmental Information

9.5

Lead

15.0

Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)

174.3

Pesticides Enforcement

24.2

Pesticides Program

13.0

Pollution Control (Sec. 106)

225.4

Pollution Prevention

Public Water System Supervision

4.7

115.8

Radon

9.1

Toxic Substances Compliance

4.8

Underground Storage Tanks

1.4

Wetlands Program Development

14.1

State and Local Air Quality Management

235.6

Resource Recovery and Hazardous Waste Grants

101.4

Clean Air

Atmospheric Protection

Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund

108.4

8.3

Clean and Safe Water Technical Assistance

Grants

Congressional Priorities

48.2

Enforcement

Environmental Justice

Congressional Research Service

100.0

12

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2026 President’s Budget Request: In Brief

FY2025 Regular

Enacted Budget

Authority

Program

(In Millions)

Indoor Air and Radiation

Indoor Air: Radon Program

3.2

Information Exchange/Outreach

Environmental Education

9.5

Exchange Network

12.4

International Programs

Trade and Governance

4.6

Legal/Science/Regulatory/Economic Review

Alternative Dispute Resolution

1.2

Regional Science and Technology

0.3

Pesticides Licensing

Science Policy and Biotechnology

1.4

State and Tribal Assistance Grants

Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant program

90.0

Safe Water for Small and Disadvantaged Communities

28.5

Toxic Risk Review and Prevention

Pollution Prevention Program

11.9

Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program

14.1

Underground Storage Tanks (LUST/UST)

LUST Prevention

Total: Proposed Eliminated Programs

24.5

1,470.6

Source: CRS, using the Environmental Protection Agency’s FY2026 Budget in Brief, pp. 55-56. Numbers may not

add due to rounding.

Congressional Research Service

13

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2026 President’s Budget Request: In Brief

Author Information

Angela C. Jones, Coordinator

Analyst in Environmental Policy

Lance N. Larson

Analyst in Environmental Policy

Laura Gatz

Specialist in Environmental Policy

Jonathan L. Ramseur

Specialist in Environmental Policy

Omar M. Hammad

Analyst in Environmental Policy

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan

shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and

under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other

than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in

connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not

subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in

its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or

material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to

copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service

R48575 · VERSION 2 · NEW

14