Stormwater industry remains polarized on Trump Administration, holds majority "very negative" view

Stormwater Solutions conducted a poll asking industry professionals how they feel about the Trump Administration's performance thus far. Following polls conducted in Q1 and Q2 of the President's first year in office, Q3 results show that the industry is holding firmly in its "very negative" view of the administration.

63% of respondents held a "very negative" view – up from 54% in Q2.

Of the total number of respondents, 63% held a “very negative” view, 4% held a “somewhat negative” view, 2% felt neutral, 4% responded with “somewhat positive” and 26% felt “very positive” about the administration’s job thus far.

Compared to the Q2 poll, 54% held a “very negative” view, 6% held a “somewhat negative” view, 7% felt neutral, 5% responded with “somewhat positive” and 28% felt “very positive” about the administration.

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.”

Job distribution of respondents fell heavily on engineering/consulting firms and municipal government employees. The breakdown of respondents’ job distribution is as follows:

• 39% engineering/consulting
• 28% municipal government
• 20% other
• 9% state government
• 3% distributor
• 2% OEM

Like the previous polls, funding and environmental regulations are trending as hot topics. Below is a list of comments left by numerous respondents that highlight some of the key takeaways from the poll results.

Funding was a talking point that respondents felt hit home. Main themes included a lack of infrastructure funding contrasted with streamlined processes.

“The attack on the infrastructure spending, which was already approved, is a slap in the face to every citizen and municipality; especially those who have pleaded for SW upgrades for years and years,” said a respondent in municipal government, “very negative” on Trump.

“Despite the BRIC cancellation, Trump’s administration did pursue other water-related initiatives:

Executive Order 13956 (2020) created a Water Subcabinet to modernize water infrastructure and improve coordination among federal agencies.

Presidential Memoranda (2018–2020) focused on improving water reliability in Western states, promoting water storage, and streamlining environmental reviews,” said a respondent in engineering/consulting, “somewhat positive” on Trump.

“I have not seen any policies, executive orders or other comments directly related to storm water since Trump came into office in January of this year,” said a respondent in municipal government, “neutral” on Trump.

“Administration has delayed or cancelled infrastructure funding for reducing lead, pfas, and others, which has led to contract problems. Staff at EPA has been reduced and funding cut, restricting our ability to coordinate projects, especially those that involve multiple stakeholders,” said a respondent in other*, “very negative” on Trump.

“Proposes more common sense to streamline permitting than yet more layers of applications and approvals,” said a respondent in engineering/consulting, “very positive” on Trump.

Regulation was another key talking point from respondents who focused on the financial benefits of deregulation contrasted with the environmental drawbacks of taking deregulatory actions.

“The move by the EPA to get back to science-based regulations should help and is a welcome improvement as is a realistic look at the WOTUS issue,” said a respondent in engineering/consulting, “very positive” on Trump.

“This administration has consistently cut natural resource agencies and seeks to dilute or eliminate regulations that protect the environment,” said a respondent in municipal government, “very negative” on Trump.

“I am very pleased with the Trump Administration's approach to the environment and regulation. Our country has been too over-regulated, which is a deterrent to innovation and development,” said a respondent in engineering/consulting, “very positive” on Trump.

“The threats from his administration to the Clean Water Act could undo the work of 50th years, and further damage a resource already in a fragile state,” said a respondent in other*, “very negative” on Trump.

“I am a practical environmentalist. Regulations that get people elected because it is a good sound bite does not mean it is a regulation that makes sense, does any actual good for the environment, can be applied from coast to coast nor applies the science to practice. So, evaluating the last decade or two of regulations is a step in the right direction,” said a respondent in engineering/consulting, “very positive” on Trump.

“Clean energy also helps keep stormwater clean. If you are opposed to clean energy, the implication is that you are also opposed to clean stormwater. This hurts everyone except those who accrue massive wealth from dirty energy,” said a respondent in municipal government, “very negative” on Trump.

“More productive to have stormwater regulations come from the State's and Local governments,” said a respondent in engineering/consulting, “somewhat positive” on Trump.

“We've got to cut regulations that simply add costs to projects,” said a respondent in engineering/consulting, “very positive” on Trump.

“I am very concerned about the weakening of environmental protections under this administration. A disregard for climate change and increasing rainfall intensity is contributing to catastrophic flooding and overwhelmed stormwater infrastructure,” said a respondent in state government, “very negative” on Trump.