Industry continues its "very negative" view of Trump Administration through Q2

As President Trump’s first year of his second term continues, the stormwater industry continues to hold a negative view of his performance. 

Following up on the Stormwater Solutions survey from Q1, the Q2 survey — asking the same questions as Q1 — showed that 54% of respondents, the majority, hold a “very negative” view of this administration.   

The Q2 survey saw an increase in participation as 442 people took the survey as opposed to the 241 people who took the Q1 survey. 

Of those, 28% hold a “very positive” view of the administration while 7% hold a neutral view. These are followed by 6% who hold a “somewhat negative” view and 5% that hold a “somewhat positive” view.  

For comparison, in the Q1 poll, 59% held a “very negative” view, 5% held a “somewhat negative” view, 3% held a “neutral view,” 3% had a “somewhat positive” view and 30% had a “very position view.”  These were all rounded to the nearest whole number for clarity. 

Of those who took the survey, 35.07% work for engineering and consulting firms; 25.83% work for municipal governments; 25.36% marked "other;" 6.4% work for state governments; 4.5% work for original equipment manufacturers; and 2.84% work for distributors.

These numbers are similar to the demographic breakdown from the Q1 survey, though there was a slight shift from those in engineering to those who work for municipal governments. Of those that took the Q1 suvey, 37% work in engineering and consulting, 23% work for municipal governments, 6% work for state governments, 4% for original equipment manufacturers and 1% for distributors. 29% of respondents labeled their work as “other."

Similar to the Q1 poll, funding and environmental regulations are of the biggest concerns to the industry. Below, we share comments left by numerous respondents. While some are worried about cuts to federal staffing and funding and how that impacts research and data, others see the size of the government as a hinderance to the economy and are OK with the staff cuts being seen at the federal level. 

Funding 

“Money was taken away from our community through a BRICK (Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities) grant. If that's what needed to happen for the federal debt to become manageable then I'm ok with it. We should all be willing to give up some things. Whether he's doing good or bad, it seems to me that the establishment is fighting him tooth and nail. If he had a free hand like some of the previous administrations did, we could tell more about how his actions will affect our country,” said a respondent in the municipal government with a “neutral” view on this administration.  

“Federal government is way too large and inefficient, thus the debt issue. Very similar issue for municipal utilities; no real "rainy day" fund for infrastructure,” said a respondent in engineering with a “very positive” view. 

“Don't dismantle the agencies that provide needed data for flood control, extreme weather forecasting, and environmental water quality protection while clawing back money congress approved for infrastructure improvement.  While I don't hate certain other impacts of the administration, these actions are short-sighted and will heavily impact areas with populations that largely support his administration,” said a respondent from an OEM with a “very negative” view.  

“I would like to emphasize the need for increased support in enforcement and inspection efforts. Additionally, we must strengthen assistance to municipalities through grants and/or project funding to help them comply with the program requirements. Municipalities are facing significant pressure due to budget cuts and limited resources. As a result, they often perceive the MS4 program as an extension of routine operations aimed primarily at flood prevention and maintaining the stormwater system, rather than as a regulatory compliance priority,” said a respondent in municipal government with a “somewhat negative” view.  

“Trump is fixing the financial waste and unconstitutional mandates made by the previous administration. It may hurt a bit up front; but once spending is controlled, the administration can focus on the items that matter; of which water is one,” said a respondent in engineering with a “very positive” view. 

Regulations 

“Regulations are over aggressive, they need to be trimmed back and he's working on this,” said a respondent in engineering that has a “very positive” view.  

“ALL of environmental protection will be moving backwards for another 3 and a half years.  It's really a sorry state of affairs for employees, policy, and very unfortunately for the future as we bake the planet,” said a respondent in engineering with a “very negative” view. 

“Not one thing has changed on our end for requirements,” said a respondent in municipal government with a “somewhat positive.” 

“The use of Executive Orders by the last few administrations is chaotic, making those of us trying to comply with requirements have to keep 'changing horses in the middle of the stream.’  Since EOs are not long term, the need to immediately alter course at the whims of a current administration is difficult and costly to achieve.  The design of the government is meant to be slower than that, allow for innovation, adjustment, compliance without wasteful hurried responses,” said a respondent in engineering with a “neutral” view. 

“Trump administration is doing an excellent job for our nation and the world. He is reducing the bureaucracy that has historically served to enrich government employees and their benefactors more than the interest of the citizens,” said a respondent in engineering with a “very positive” view.  

“This administration's concerns about the environment only go as far as the least amount of regulation will take them.  I oversee a wastewater treatment facility, so I understand the burden of regulations, but they are there for a reason.  This administration just wants it to appear as though they saved the country vast amounts of money through dismissals and dumping regulations that aren't necessary or overreaching.  I agree that some regulations are unnecessary, but to dismiss employees, shut down departments, and undo regulatory work that took years to build is irresponsible,” said a respondent in municipal government with a “very negative” view.