Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for lead pipes, PFAS contamination, drought, infrastructure funding, and your family's access to clean water.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares water policy approaches — but there's much more to explore.
Clean water is the most basic human need, and America is failing to provide it. An estimated 9.2 million lead service lines still deliver drinking water to homes across the country. PFAS "forever chemicals" have been detected in the blood of 97% of Americans. The western United States faces a drought crisis threatening 40 million people's water supply. And aging infrastructure — with pipes averaging 45 years old — loses an estimated 6 billion gallons of treated water every day to leaks.
The American Society of Civil Engineers gives US water infrastructure a C- grade and estimates $625 billion is needed over 20 years to maintain and improve water systems. Current federal investment covers a fraction of that. Meanwhile, 2 million Americans still lack access to running water and basic plumbing — disproportionately on tribal lands, in rural communities, and in the deep South.
Democrats favor strong regulation and increased federal funding. Republicans favor state-level solutions and reducing federal mandates. The Common Good Party proposes a comprehensive approach: full lead pipe replacement, enforceable PFAS standards with manufacturer liability, drought management reform, opposition to privatization, and federal investment that matches the scale of the crisis.
How the three approaches stack up on water policy.
| Issue | Democrats | Republicans | Common Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead pipes | Replace all — $15B allocated | State/local responsibility primarily | Full replacement in 10 years, $45B federal investment |
| PFAS regulation | Enforceable limits (EPA 2024) | Voluntary guidelines, limit liability | Strict limits + manufacturer liability fund |
| Infrastructure funding | Bipartisan law + additional proposals | Public-private partnerships, state bonds | $50B over 10 years, priority for underserved areas |
| Drought management | Conservation programs, climate adaptation | Market-based water rights, dams/storage | Reform water rights, demand pricing, recycling tech |
| Clean water access | Expand EPA programs, tribal investment | State-level programs | Universal access — clean water as a right |
| Privatization | Oppose expansion, support public systems | Support private sector involvement | Oppose — water is a public trust, not a commodity |
| Agricultural runoff | Conservation funding, some regulation | Voluntary conservation, oppose mandates | Close exemption for industrial ag, fund small farm conservation |
| Water rights | Maintain federal oversight | State control, prior appropriation | Modernize century-old frameworks for current climate |
| Sewage systems | Federal investment, combined sewer fixes | Local responsibility, bonds | $15B for combined sewer separation, green infrastructure |
| How paid for | Federal spending, some taxes | Private investment, state bonds | Polluter liability + fossil fuel subsidy reallocation + bonds |
Sources: EPA, ASCE, NRDC, USGS, party platform documents. See the compact comparison view for a quick side-by-side summary.
Democrats have led on water infrastructure investment, supporting the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's $55 billion for water systems, the EPA's enforceable PFAS limits, lead pipe replacement funding, and expanded Clean Water Act enforcement. The party supports increased tribal water investment, conservation programs, and stronger regulation of industrial polluters. Democrats have also pushed for environmental justice frameworks that prioritize the most contaminated communities.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's water investment was a genuine achievement. Enforceable PFAS limits are a critical step that industry fought for decades. The environmental justice framework correctly identifies that water contamination disproportionately affects communities of color and low-income communities. Federal leadership on water quality — from the Clean Water Act to lead regulations — has dramatically improved American water safety over the past 50 years. Democrats are right that this is a federal responsibility.
The $15 billion allocated for lead pipe replacement covers roughly a third of what's needed. Enforcing PFAS limits without helping water systems pay for treatment technology shifts the burden to local ratepayers — who face rate increases they may not be able to afford. Democrats have been slow to address water rights reform in the West, where century-old allocation systems waste enormous amounts of water. And while regulation is necessary, it must be paired with investment — mandating PFAS compliance for a rural water system serving 500 people without funding is an unfunded mandate by another name.
For more on water infrastructure, see the full water policy explainer.
Republicans favor state and local control of water management with reduced federal regulation. Key proposals include market-based water rights, public-private partnerships for infrastructure, voluntary conservation programs, limiting PFAS liability for manufacturers, and increasing water storage through dams and reservoirs. Republicans generally support infrastructure investment but prefer it to flow through state revolving funds and private capital rather than direct federal programs.
Water management genuinely differs by region — western drought, eastern flooding, and Great Plains groundwater depletion require different approaches. State and local expertise matters. Market-based water pricing can reduce waste — when water is essentially free (as it is in many agricultural contexts), there's no incentive to conserve. Increasing water storage is part of any drought solution, and new reservoir technology is more environmentally sensitive than old dam construction. Republicans also voted for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's water provisions, showing that water infrastructure can transcend party lines.
Limiting PFAS liability protects the companies that contaminated the water in the first place. 3M and DuPont knew PFAS were toxic for decades and continued production — they should bear the cleanup costs, not taxpayers and ratepayers. Voluntary conservation has not solved western water problems; the Colorado River compact, a voluntary framework, has left the river critically over-allocated. Reducing federal regulation means weaker enforcement of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act — laws that exist because states failed to protect water quality on their own.
Private water utilities consistently charge more while investing less in infrastructure than public systems. Privatization turns a basic human need into a profit center, with predictable results: higher rates, deferred maintenance, and reduced access for low-income communities. Water is a natural monopoly — you can't choose between competing water pipes. Market competition doesn't work when there's only one pipe to your house.
For more on water rights and privatization, see our water policy explainer.
The Common Good Party treats clean water as a right, not a privilege. Our plan: complete lead pipe replacement within 10 years ($45 billion federal investment); strict PFAS limits with a manufacturer liability fund (polluters pay for cleanup); $50 billion in total water infrastructure investment over 10 years prioritizing underserved communities; opposition to further water privatization; reform of century-old western water rights; closing the Clean Water Act's agricultural runoff exemption for industrial operations; universal access to clean running water including tribal lands; and $15 billion for combined sewer separation in aging cities.
Unlike the Democratic approach, we fully fund every mandate — no telling a water system to fix its PFAS problem without helping pay for it. We also tackle western water rights reform, which Democrats have largely avoided. Unlike the Republican approach, we hold polluters accountable rather than protecting them, and we reject privatization of a natural monopoly that serves a basic human need. Our funding model — manufacturer liability, fossil fuel subsidy reallocation, and infrastructure bonds — is fiscally concrete, not aspirational.
Countries that treat water as a public right and invest accordingly outperform those that don't. Denmark charges water prices that reflect true costs and has cut per-capita consumption by 40% while maintaining universal access. Singapore has achieved water self-sufficiency through recycling and desalination. Israel reuses 85% of its wastewater for agriculture. The technology and policy tools exist. The United States spends $50 billion per year on bottled water because people don't trust their tap water. For the same money, we could fix the tap water.
Water policy affects every household in America. Here's what the CGP plan means for real families.
Want to see how the full Common Good platform affects your household? Try the tax calculator.
Open the Tax CalculatorCommon questions about water policy.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full water policy explainer or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Dive deeper into water policy.
9.2 million lead pipes. PFAS in 97% of Americans. The richest country on Earth can't guarantee safe tap water. Read the full plan and see which approach actually fixes it.
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.