People “just turn a faucet and expect water to come out,” Guilderland’s supervisor, Peter Barber, told us last month.

He’s right. The lines are buried underground and we don’t think about them. Barber was speaking to us because Guilderland had just gotten a $2.4 million grant from the state for a $4 million water project that will set up a permanent connection with Rotterdam and will expand municipal water to West Old State and Fuller Station roads as well as replacing an old water tower in Fort Hunter.

Guilderland had planned ahead, not just in applying for the grant but in setting aside funds so that no new taxes will be levied to cover the $1.6 million not covered by the grant.

In this era when municipalities in New York are to stay under a tax cap, it is wise for them to save a little at a time for large projects. Barber said that Guilderland set aside roughly $200,000 every year for water reserves and another $200,000 for sewer reserves. Water reserves currently total about $1.5 million, for specific projects, he said, and there is another $6.1 million in a fund balance for water, a “rainy-day account we use throughout the year.”

We urge other municipalities to do the same. While no one likes to see fees increase, it is far wiser to have users pay a little more so that systems can be upgraded avoiding unexpected crises.

This year, for example, the village of Voorheesville increased its water fees so that it can be ready to make improvements. Municipal systems that were built as long as 100 years ago, as in Altamont, served the village for many decades without need for investment so water bills could be kept low and that became the expected norm. Altamont’s income is too high to secure federal grants, its former mayor, James Gaughan, told Congressman Paul Tonko when he came to the village in March 2015 for a talk on water infrastructure.

“We were told we were able to tax more,” Gaughan said.

According to a report this year from State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, New York’s water systems may require nearly $40 billion in repairs and improvements over the next two decades. The lengthy and sobering report outlines problems including water loss from aging systems, contamination, security concerns, constraints on water supplies, and effects of climate change that may shrink water supplies as well as degrade the quality of remaining supplies

“While state and federal aid may be of some assistance, it is not currently at a level that will solve the problems associated with water system costs,” the report from the Office of the State Comptroller says. “Capital planning is the only realistic path toward effectively maintaining and improving water systems. Unfortunately, OSC audits have found that many local governments do not consistently use capital planning as a tool. Furthermore, even the most thoughtful plans sometimes take a back seat during tough fiscal times.”

This is a warning bell that we urge our local leaders to heed. “Every local government should have a multi-year financial plan, a corresponding capital plan, and a workable process to keep both of them up-to-date,” the comptroller’s report says. “The best capital plans include water asset needs in the context of all municipal needs. For example, repairs and upgrades to drinking water systems should be coordinated with similar wastewater system needs, or even road repairs and other related infrastructure repairs and improvements.”

But even if infrastructure is maintained and improved, the water it delivers must be safe. As Americans, we’ve also taken for granted that our water, once we do turn the faucet, will not harm us when we drink it.

As New Yorkers, though, we’ve been jolted by reports of contaminated water in Hoosick Falls and Newburgh. The safeguards we had assumed were in place did not protect the residents there.

While we commend the state for last year requiring all schools to test for lead levels — consumption of lead can stymie a child’s brain development — and remediate problems, untold numbers of New Yorkers consume lead through their taps at home. Programs are needed for home testing, separate from contamination in public water sources.

In New York, regulation of public water takes place mainly through the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the state’s Department of Health. Federal laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, and EPA regulations set the basic regulatory structure. Every public water system is required to create annual Water Quality Reports with information on water sources, treatment, and quality. The state’s Department of Environmental Conservation regulates drinking-water sources like lakes and rivers. Private wells are largely unregulated.

That oversight, though, has holes in it.

In response to the Trump administration’s proposed EPA budget cuts that would hinder the agency’s ability to properly monitor and enforce drinking-water standards in public water supplies, DiNapoli outlined ways to ensure New Yorkers have access to clean, safe water.

The EPA requires that states adopt drinking water standards at least as stringent as the federal standards, but the federal standards do not cover all contaminants. DiNapoli urges New York increase standards especially for PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), which was found at Hoosick Falls and other sites, and for 1,4-dioxin, which has been found in some Long Island wells.

The report pushes for an increase in the number of contaminants monitored by the state’s Department of Health, especially for contaminants that may be more specific to New York and are not covered in federal standards. We wholeheartedly support these recommendations.

The first line of government should be to protect public safety and, if the EPA is undermined to the point where it cannot do so, the state must provide that protection. The best protection of all, of course, would be to prevent contamination in the first place. If pollution controls are lessened or lifted, protection of water becomes even more essential.

— Melissa Hale-Spencer