“There is no question the administration is seriously weakening EPA’s mission by vigorously pursuing an industry deregulation approach and defunding implementation of environmental programs.”

Elizabeth Southerland, Former Director of Science and Technology, EPA Office of Water

Here are some proposed cuts that are likely to face resistance when the budget reaches Congress.

Tap Water

The Public Water System Supervision Grant Program has been critical in making sure communities have access to safe drinking water. In Texas, for example, state-contracted workers collect drinking water samples across the state, an effort funded in part by federal grants. The proposed budget would decrease grants that help states monitor public water systems by almost a third, to $71 million from $102 million.

Much of the risk to the country’s water supply stems from its crumbling public water infrastructure: a network of pipes, treatment plants and other facilities built decades ago. Although Congress banned lead pipes in 1986, between 3.3 million and 10 million older ones remain, primed to leach lead into tap water.

Sharp cuts in the agency’s enforcement programs could curtail its ability to police environmental offenders and impose penalties. The budget proposal reduces spending on civil and criminal enforcement by almost 60 percent, to $4 million from a combined $10 million. It also eliminates 200 jobs.

Geographic Programs

Secretary Pruitt proposed that almost all regional clean-up programs are eliminated: Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound, Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, and South Florida. Defunding these widely successful restoration programs threatens wildlife and wildlife habitat, and threatens Americans’ access to drinkable, fishable, and swimmable water.

Much of the federal money has gone toward helping bring affected communities to the table to find solutions. Without that, communities could sue the EPA for failing to act, ultimately running up the agency’s legal bills and slowing remediation as cases wind their way through the courts.

Superfund and Brownfields

Superfund makes federal funds available for the cleanup of sites contaminated by hazardous substances and pollutants. The Superfund program can save taxpayers money, because it lets the EPA identify polluters and compel them to pay for the cleanup. But the proposed budget reduces its enforcement and remedial components by 45 percent, bringing it to $221 million from $404 million.

EPA officials call Brownfields, a program that helps towns and cities redevelop former industrial sites, one of the agency’s most popular programs. The EPA website still lists its success stories: refashioning an old textile mill in Hickory, N.C., into a retail, dining and event space, and redeveloping former factory sites on the banks of Iowa’s Cedar River into riverfront condominiums. Funding to states under the Brownfields program is set for a reduction of 30 percent, to $33 million from $48 million.

Endocrine Disrupters

The budget eliminates a $6 million research and screening effort targeting these chemicals, which are found widely in pesticides, plastics, shampoos and cosmetics, cash register receipts, food can linings and other products. The chemicals have been linked to breast cancer in women and hypospadias, a birth defect in boys. Ending the program would curtail the agency’s ability to review medical data and work with environmental lawyers to fashion an agency response.

Climate Protection

It is no surprise that the new EPA is targeting climate change initiatives, given the Trump administration’s hostility toward the science of global warming and a pro-business bent. But many of the programs that fall under the $70 million Climate Protection Program — which would be eliminated under the White House proposal — are industry favorites.

Take the Energy Star program for energy-efficient televisions, washers, dryers, lights and other consumer goods. Companies say Energy Star helps give their products a competitive edge, and also helps them sell overseas, where the standard has been adopted by the European Union, Japan, Australia and Canada, among major markets.

And the SmartWay program works with logistics companies to make their operations more climate friendly. SmartWay helps trucking companies fit their trucks with aerodynamic flaps and low-resistance tires, for example, that save fuel and reduce emissions.

Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards

It has been barely a year since Volkswagen agreed to pay as much as $14.7 billion to settle claims stemming from its diesel emissions cheating scandal, and the EPA has accused a second automaker, Fiat Chrysler, of evading emissions standards. But the proposed budget cuts would all but eliminate the $48.7 million federal budget for vehicle tests and certification. The White House argues that automakers will pay for testing through fees; however, that takes time to set up and any funding shortfall in the meantime would mean a significant paring back of the work at EPA’s emissions testing labs.

Nonpoint Source Grants

The $165 million Nonpoint Source Grant program helps states deal with pollutants from sources that are not directly regulated under the Clean Water Act — like the phosphorus that flows into Lake Erie from fertilizer, which feeds algae and weeds that starve the water of oxygen, harming fish and other wildlife. Among other remedies, the nonpoint source grants have been used to help states create “buffer strips” — areas of thick vegetation that help filter the contaminated runoff. The proposed budget would eliminate the grants.

Radiation Protection

When the 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis in Japan sent radioactive plumes across the Pacific, the EPA’s RadNet system monitored the fallout on America’s shores, deploying additional air monitors in Alaska and Hawaii and ordering accelerated samplings of rain, tap water and milk.

Over the next two months, laboratory analyses detected very low amounts of iodine and other radionuclides across the country. Levels remained far below the safety threshold, and the EPA determined that no action was needed.

In the case of another nuclear accident, RadNet could help officials make science-based decisions on how to protect the public. The proposed budget would defund the agency’s $3.3 million Radiation Protection program and eliminate 60 jobs.