The main federal loan program for water mains now has a draft path to 2031.
On August 27, leaders of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce released a discussion draft of the Safe Drinking Water Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2026, a bill to reauthorize the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. The draft would authorize $1.126 billion a year for the DWSRF in each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031. It would also give five-year extensions to a group of smaller programs covering technical assistance, small and disadvantaged systems, infrastructure resilience and workforce training.
On the same day, Chairmen Guthrie and Palmer scheduled a September 3 hearing of the Environment Subcommittee on the draft and on a companion bill, the Water Cost Accountability Act of 2026. They said the hearing would give members an opportunity to discuss legislation that safeguards the nation’s drinking water infrastructure, protecting water systems against cyber threats and other risks.
For utilities trying to cut water loss, few federal decisions matter more. The state revolving funds are how many systems pay for main replacement, meter upgrades and the distribution work that actually shrinks leakage.
Five More Years of Certainty for Pipe Renewal
The authorizations in the Safe Drinking Water Act are written for fiscal years 2022 through 2026. The draft replaces those end dates with 2031 throughout. That includes small system technical assistance under the DWSRF, which would simply be extended to 2031.
That change matters.
Water loss reduction does not happen in one budget cycle. A main replacement program that targets the worst-performing pipes, a district metering rollout or a pressure management scheme across several zones can take years to design, finance and build. Utilities and state agencies plan their capital lists several years ahead, and a lapse or a period of doubt over the main loan program slows that work at the planning stage, well before any contractor is hired.
Two caveats apply. An authorization sets a ceiling, and the amount utilities actually get depends on appropriations. In the discussion draft, the dollar figures also appear in brackets, which means they are still open to negotiation. Even so, a five-year horizon gives states and utilities something concrete to plan around.
The Supporting Programs Get Attention Too
The headline loan figure is only part of the bill. Several of the smaller programs that help utilities prepare fundable projects would also be renewed, and some would grow.
Under the draft, authorized funding for technical assistance under Section 1442(e) would rise from $15 million to $40 million a year. Assistance for small and disadvantaged communities would be authorized at $140 million a year. The Midsize and Large Drinking Water System Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability Program would continue at $50 million a year. The program for reducing lead in drinking water would continue at $100 million a year.
The draft also widens help for colonias along the southern border. Local governments with jurisdiction over eligible communities would qualify alongside border states, authorization would rise to $50 million a year, and the federal share of project costs could not be less than 80 percent. Under current law, that share cannot exceed 50 percent.
Some lines get smaller. Two technical assistance and small system sustainability authorizations would be set below their current levels. Overall, though, the draft keeps the existing structure in place and adds new capacity where smaller utilities have the least of it.
For water loss programs, technical assistance is often where the work starts. A utility can’t build a credible leakage reduction project without a reliable water audit, good asset records and staff who can turn that data into a capital plan.
New Transparency Rules Would Reward Disciplined Utilities
The draft adds rules on how revolving fund projects are procured and reported.
States would have to require that SRF-funded contracts for program management, construction management, feasibility studies, engineering, design, surveying and mapping be negotiated on a qualifications basis. These are the same rules federal agencies use to hire architects and engineers, and a state can use an equivalent requirement of its own. Systems serving 10,000 or fewer people would be exempt.
Each state would also have to publish an annual report on every SRF-assisted project. The report would list project status, the contracting parties and first-tier subcontractors, the scope of work, the contract amount and payment records. State oversight of American Iron and Steel requirements would extend to the Buy America provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
For utilities that already run disciplined capital programs, little of this is a burden. It also makes results easier to see. If project data is published every year, utilities that can show measurable gains such as fewer main breaks, lower real losses and better metering accuracy will have a stronger case when they compete for the next round of funding.
How Water Loss Programs Can Prepare
The draft is not yet law, but it signals where federal water funding is heading. Utilities do not need to wait for the final text to get ready.
- Keep validated water audits current so leakage projects rest on defensible numbers
- Bundle main replacement, metering and pressure management into ready-to-fund project packages
- Use expanded technical assistance to build asset management and audit capacity
- Plan engineering procurement around qualifications-based selection for systems above 10,000 people
- Set up contract and payment record-keeping that would meet annual state reporting
- Follow appropriations as closely as authorization, because the appropriated amount decides what gets built
The Next Test Comes in the Hearing Room
The September 3 subcommittee hearing is the next step. The bill has not yet been formally introduced, so the bracketed figures, the reporting rules and the balance between the larger and smaller programs can all still change.
Still, the direction is positive. The committee has proposed keeping the main federal financing channel for drinking water infrastructure running for five more years, with more support for the utilities least able to prepare projects on their own.
For an industry whose biggest leakage gains come from steady, multi-year renewal programs, predictable funding matters more than any single grant.
Reauthorization does not fix a single leak. It keeps funding in place for the utilities that do.
