The bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) to add a statutory definition of “resource preservation technique” and to prioritize those techniques in several program authorities. It replaces references to water- and energy-efficiency in capitalization grant criteria with the broader phrase “use of resource preservation techniques,” requires SRF loan recipients to evaluate and, where practicable, use those techniques for treatment works repair, replacement, or expansion, and edits SRF eligible-use language to include resource preservation.
The bill also raises authorized funding levels: it increases the Wastewater Efficiency Grant Pilot to $40 million per year for fiscal years 2026–2031 (available until expended) and boosts the Clean Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Program to $50 million per year for fiscal years 2026–3031. Those funding changes shift federal policy toward supporting water- and energy-saving, stormwater-mitigating, and other “environmentally innovative” infrastructure projects.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a single statutory definition of “resource preservation technique” that explicitly includes water reuse, energy efficiency, stormwater mitigation, sustainable design, and other environmentally innovative measures. It amends capitalization-grant criteria and Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) provisions to prioritize and, for certain SRF-funded projects, require use of those techniques “to the maximum extent practicable.” It increases authorized funding for two related grant programs for 2026 onward.
Who It Affects
State SRF administrators, municipal and investor-owned wastewater utilities that access CWSRF loans, engineering and construction firms that design and build water and stormwater systems, and vendors of water/energy-saving technologies. It also affects federal program administrators who manage grant solicitations and states’ project-selection processes.
Why It Matters
The bill formalizes a broader policy preference—beyond narrow water- or energy-efficiency—into the Clean Water Act’s financing and grant frameworks, which can change what projects qualify for federal support and how states prioritize SRF investments. For utilities, it creates an expectation to evaluate and adopt integrated water-energy-stormwater strategies that can alter lifecycle costs and funding eligibility.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a new statutory term, “resource preservation technique,” and then folds that term into several financing and grant provisions of the Clean Water Act. The new definition is deliberately broad: it covers water efficiency (including reuse and recapture), energy efficiency, stormwater runoff mitigation, sustainable planning and construction, and other environmentally innovative techniques.
By naming this category in statute, the bill gives states and federal reviewers a single reference point when assessing projects for CWSRF loans and related grants.
At the program level, the bill modifies the capitalization grant consideration language that the EPA uses when awarding capitalization grants to states, replacing a list of efficiency concepts with the single phrase “use of resource preservation techniques.” For the State Revolving Fund itself, the bill inserts a stronger obligation for recipients of loans for treatment works repair, replacement, or expansion: loan recipients must evaluate and, “to the maximum extent practicable,” use resource preservation techniques. The SRF eligible-use language is also edited to include those techniques explicitly.On the grant side, the bill increases the authorized appropriations for two programs.
It raises the Wastewater Efficiency Grant Pilot to $40 million per year for fiscal years 2026–2031 and makes those funds available until expended. It also raises the Clean Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Program to $50 million per year for fiscal years 2026–3031.
Those authorizations expand federal support (subject to appropriation) for projects that advance the bill’s defined techniques, potentially enabling larger or more numerous pilot projects, technical assistance, or demonstration projects around water reuse, stormwater mitigation, and energy-saving retrofits.Taken together, the changes nudge federal financing toward projects that treat water, energy, and stormwater as integrated design challenges. Practically, that will change selection criteria used by states and influence engineering scopes, capital planning, and benefit-cost analyses for many wastewater projects—especially ones proposing reuse, recapture, or green infrastructure measures.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new definition (33 U.S.C. 1362(28)) for “resource preservation technique” that explicitly lists water reuse/recapture, energy efficiency, stormwater mitigation, sustainable design/construction, and other environmentally innovative measures.
It amends capitalization-grant criteria at 33 U.S.C. 1382(b)(13)(B) by replacing the previous phrase on efficient water and energy use with the requirement to consider “the use of resource preservation techniques.”, It changes the CWSRF statute (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1)(E)) to require that, for treatment works repair/replacement/expansion eligible for SRF assistance, loan recipients evaluate and use resource preservation techniques “to the maximum extent practicable.”, It edits SRF eligible-use language (33 U.S.C. 1383(i)(1)(B)) to explicitly include resource preservation techniques among permitted uses of SRF funds.
The bill authorizes $40 million per year for the Wastewater Efficiency Grant Pilot (FY2026–2031, available until expended) and $50 million per year for the Clean Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Program for FY2026–3031.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the statute’s public name as the “Water Preservation and Affordability Act of 2025.” This is purely titular but signals legislated intent to prioritize preservation, efficiency, and affordability in subsequent provisions.
Defines 'resource preservation technique'
Adds a new numbered definition to the Clean Water Act. The definition is intentionally inclusive: it binds together water-efficiency measures (including reuse and recapture), energy-efficiency measures, stormwater-runoff mitigation, sustainable planning/design/construction, and a catchall “environmentally innovative” category. That breadth gives program administrators flexibility but will require them to develop interpretive guidance when deciding which specific practices qualify under that statutory label.
Refocuses capitalization-grant evaluation criteria
Replaces the existing capitalization-grant criterion language that called for consideration of potential for efficient water and energy use with a single reference to the “use of resource preservation techniques.” Practically, this changes the rubric EPA and states use when negotiating capitalization-grant agreements and could shift programmatic priorities toward projects that demonstrate integrated water/energy/stormwater approaches rather than narrow efficiency metrics.
Requires SRF loan recipients to evaluate and use resource preservation techniques
Two changes operate inside the CWSRF statute. First, the bill inserts a requirement that recipients of loans for repair/replacement/expansion of treatment works must evaluate—and “will use, to the maximum extent practicable”—resource preservation techniques when carrying out such projects. Second, it edits the eligible-use clause to explicitly allow resource preservation techniques. Together these edits make evaluation mandatory and use aspirationally obligatory, shifting project design expectations for SRF-funded work. Enforcement and oversight will depend on how states fold this requirement into their SRF loan terms and project-selection criteria.
Increases authorized appropriations for two grant programs
Section 222(e) authorizes $40 million annually for the Wastewater Efficiency Grant Pilot for FY2026–2031 (available until expended). Section 223(g)(1) raises the Clean Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Program to $50 million annually for FY2026–3031. These are authorization levels—actual funding requires appropriation—but they enlarge statutory ceilings and signal federal intent to underwrite pilots, resiliency projects, and demonstrations that advance the defined techniques. The extended multi-year windows also allow for multi-phase projects and longer-term grant management.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Municipal and other wastewater utilities that adopt integrated water-energy measures — they gain clearer access to federal finance and grant programs that explicitly support reuse, recapture, and green infrastructure, potentially lowering lifecycle operating costs.
- State SRF administrators — the statutory language gives states a firmer basis to prioritize projects with preservation techniques and to justify programmatic incentives or set-asides for innovative projects.
- Vendors and engineering firms specializing in water reuse, energy-efficient treatment, and green stormwater infrastructure — expect greater market demand as federal finance and grant criteria favor those approaches.
- Disadvantaged ratepayers and communities that receive projects emphasizing efficiency and reuse — over time, lower operating costs and alternative supplies can improve affordability and service resilience, particularly where grant funding covers pilot and demonstration costs.
Who Bears the Cost
- Small and rural utilities with limited planning, engineering, or financial capacity — the requirement to evaluate and adopt resource preservation techniques may impose technical and up-front capital burdens that these systems struggle to meet.
- State SRF programs and loan recipients — implementing the “evaluate and use” mandate will require new project-selection protocols, monitoring, and possibly longer technical assistance, increasing administrative workload and costs for states.
- Ratepayers where utilities pass through higher upfront capital costs — some resource-preserving technologies have higher initial price tags, and absent sufficient grant support, utilities may raise rates to cover them.
- Federal appropriations process — although the bill authorizes larger funding amounts, Congress must appropriate the money; the larger authorizations create budgetary pressure and competing priorities within EPA and OMB.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate aims: accelerating adoption of integrated, often cost-saving-but-higher-upfront-cost water and energy technologies versus preserving short-term affordability and fundability for cash-strapped utilities. The statutory push for preservation techniques can increase long‑term resilience and lower operating costs, but it also risks pricing some small systems out of routine SRF projects unless states pair the requirement with targeted grants, technical assistance, or financing terms that address upfront costs.
The law’s definitional breadth creates both opportunity and ambiguity. “Resource preservation technique” groups together diverse interventions—retrofit-level energy upgrades, centralized water reuse systems, and decentralized green infrastructure—under one label. That flexibility helps tailor federal support but forces EPA and states to develop interpretive guidance and standardized eligibility criteria; without that guidance, states may apply the definition unevenly or prefer low-risk technologies, undermining the bill’s intent.
The phrase “to the maximum extent practicable” is legally familiar but operationally indeterminate. It delegates substantial judgment to loan recipients and state programs, meaning compliance will hinge on how states translate the mandate into loan terms, engineering standards, and cost-benefit thresholds.
The funding provisions expand authorized ceilings substantially but do not appropriate funds; program expansion will therefore depend on future appropriations and on whether EPA dedicates discretionary program staff and technical assistance to help smaller utilities plan and implement qualifying projects. Finally, the bill shifts attention to lifecycle benefits (energy and long-term water savings) at a time when many utilities focus on near-term capital affordability, which may create conflicts in local capital improvement planning and rate-setting.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.