WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s resolve to shake up the Environmental Protection Agency by slashing its budget and shrinking government regulations has states that rely heavily on EPA funding on edge.

Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., said he’s worried the changes could endanger $100 million the city of Flint is supposed to receive to improve its contaminated water system.

Rep. Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa, called it “irresponsible to take a hacksaw” to an agency that “is responsible for keeping the water we drink clean and the air that we breathe safe” in his state and across the country.

State environmental officials in Vermont told Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., that federal funding makes up 80 percent of the money needed to clean up Lake Champlain and one-third of the financing to towns to maintain safe drinking water.

Even new EPA Secretary Scott Pruitt has questioned the scale of the reported cutbacks by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. The Department of Environmental Quality in his home state of Oklahoma receives one-third of its $76 million annual budget from the EPA.

Published reports of preliminary cost-reduction plans from Trump’s budget office indicate EPA spending in the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 will be cut by 25 percent to $6.1 billion. If that holds in the final version, thousands of EPA employees would be eliminated and many regulations would be rolled back on industry and the states.

Trump has described the EPA as a “disgrace,” suggesting it spends too much money and effort on climate change concerns such as carbon emissions. He has targeted the agency as one of several that will operate “leaner” to free up $54 billion to build up the nation’s military force.

Science magazine reported it has seen preliminary directives from the White House budget office that would cut 40 percent out of the EPA’s office of Research and Development – or roughly from $510 million to $290 million. The magazine said areas affected would be climate change, air and water quality and chemical safety.

Science quoted Gina McCarthy, President Barack Obama’s last EPA administration, as saying Trump is “not just going after the climate science in the agency, but going after the scientists … that do fundamental air and water and land work.”

Liz Perera, climate policy director for the Sierra Club, warned steep cuts to the EPA would be “devastating” to state environmental agencies that need federal funds for monitoring air quality, ensuring clean major bodies of water like the Great Lakes, and even converting diesel school buses to low-emission systems. She said Congress could feel the heat from governors once they determine how the Trump budget will affect their states.

Pruitt, former state attorney general in Oklahoma who frequently sued the EPA over strict emission standards, has questioned the scientific consensus that human activities contribute significantly to global warming. He plans to release revised carbon standards for automakers and other industries.

But Pruitt told E&E News, an environmental policy news site, last week he has raised concerns about the size of the EPA spending cutbacks with the director of the White House budget office. Of particular concern, said Pruitt, are the “grants that have been targeted, particularly around water infrastructure and those very important state revolving funds.”

Pruitt has also said he wants to continue funding cleanup of the nation’s seriously polluted land sites under the Super Fund and Brownfields programs.

Conservation organization organizations say they will litigate any regulation changes they consider harmful to the environment and to public safety. “We’re kind of bracing for the impact,” Chris Killian, director of the Conservation Law Foundation in Vermont, told a recent gathering of environmental leaders.

A White House spokeswoman downplayed concerns based on the preliminary EPA budget reductions. She said the administration is still crafting the final details for presentation to Congress later this month.

Key Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee – such as West Virginia’s Shelley Moore Capito and Iowa’s Joni Ernst – were taking a wait and see approach until they could review the budget. Republicans on the Senate environmental committees were also silent about the potential EPA cuts.

The conservative Heritage Foundation, however, has boldly recommended cutting federal water quality and land preservation funds to local governments, saying they should be the states’ responsibility.

Senator Peters, in an interview, defended the need for federal assistance, saying the feds stepped in after state authorities “dropped the ball” in protecting Flint’s water quality. Peters said he has asked the Trump administration for assurance Flint’s funds will not be affected in the new budget, but has yet to receive a response.

Kery Murakami is CNHI’s Washington reporter. Contact him at kmurakami@cnhi.com.