Lawmakers hear case for statewide water-assistance fund; advocates ask for $60 million in FY26

During a meeting of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Human Services, presenters said Michigan faces widespread water-affordability problems and asked lawmakers to include $60 million in the fiscal 2026 health and human services budget to help fund a proposed statewide water-assistance program.

The request was presented by Sarah Rubino of the Michigan section of the American Water Works Association and Maggie Palone of Public Sector Consultants, who reviewed statewide data on household water burden. Jasmine Carson of Wayne Metropolitan Community Action Agency and Deborah Pospeach, working with Detroit Water and Sewerage Department stakeholders, described program administration and policy details that appear in draft legislation now before the Legislature.

Rubino, representing roughly 2,300 water professionals in Michigan, said local water systems “are supported by the service seat fees and rates that they charge to customers” and argued a permanent statewide assistance program would help stabilize both household budgets and utility finances. “Until a permanent statewide solution is established, we're respectfully requesting that the subcommittee include 60,000,000 in the fiscal year 20 26 health and human services budget to support water assistance programs across the state,” Rubino told the panel.

Palone, who said Public Sector Consultants collected water-rate data from about 500 of Michigan’s roughly 1,200 water utilities covering about 85% of the state population, summarized the research underpinning the budget request. She told the subcommittee that about 371,000 households would qualify for a program that limits household water costs to no more than 3% of income, and that the average annual gap between current bills and that affordability threshold is about $435—about $36 a month. “There is no permanent program at the federal level that supports water assistance,” Palone said, explaining why advocates favor a statewide approach.

Witnesses described prior one-time state appropriations and how a permanent program would differ. Palone and Rubino noted earlier state allocations: $25 million in 2020 (which Palone said helped 317,000 households), $60 million in 2024, and $10 million in 2025. Advocates described the proposed long-term funding mechanism in current draft legislation as a small per-meter monthly charge and legislative language that would keep funds within existing MDHHS service regions.

Deborah Pospeach described three design changes in the current bill package compared with the prior session: funds would remain inside four MDHHS service-center regions, the proposed monthly meter fee would start at $1.25 and rise by 25 cents per year if need persists, and an opt-out provision would allow a community to administer its own program and keep the meter charge locally. “The funds in each region stay in that region,” Pospeach said. “A community can decide to opt out and just run their own program and they will keep their dollar 25 per meter charge within their water provider community.”

Jasmine Carson, representing Wayne Metropolitan Community Action Agency, described operational experience. Wayne Metro, she said, has administered $59.5 million in assistance since 2022 and served more than 36,000 households. “These programs are not handouts. They are essential public investments,” Carson said, adding that assistance can prevent public-health harms and avoid more costly downstream outcomes.

Committee members pressed witnesses on program design and unintended consequences. Representative Beeson expressed concern that repairs paid with assistance funds could benefit landlords rather than tenants, saying he could not support a program that “fix[es] the system with our state money instead of the landlord.” Witnesses and other members responded that program rules, local ordinances, and eligibility design are intended to limit inappropriate payments and that the draft legislation explicitly contemplates measures such as plumbing repairs and local administration decisions.

Representatives also asked for more granular data. Palone said she could attempt to break down the 371,000 qualifying households into renters versus homeowners if the committee wanted that information. Members asked how MDHHS would allocate funds between communities, and witnesses said the department has administered prior emergency funding and that more policy-level details will come from MDHHS and sponsors as the proposal advances.

The meeting produced no formal vote or committee action; witnesses asked the subcommittee to consider the appropriation request and the bill package as it moves through the Legislature.

Looking ahead, witnesses and lawmakers agreed more information would be provided to the committee on program administration, regional allocations, and renter/homeowner breakdowns. Advocates urged that a permanent, statewide program could reduce shutoffs, stabilize utility revenue and infrastructure funding, and limit public-health harms from lack of water.