New York boosts funding for water cybersecurity grants 43%

By Colin Wood46%

8/5/2026, 3:04:13 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 15% saturation with 109 hits. Analysis detected 855 faulty-reasoning hits from 726 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39% and a BS Rank of 43% (17,334 of 30,213 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.40% of the article peer group.

Reminding everyone that not all of the nation’s water infrastructure will be so readily disrupted by cyberattack, New York Gov. 
Kathy Hochul this week announced more than $9 million in grants to improve the cybersecurity of dozens of water systems across the state. 
One hundred and fifty-three local government projects are set to receive funding through Strengthening Essential Cybersecurity for Utilities and Resiliency Enhancements, or SECURE, a grant program created to support new cybersecurity standards governing the state’s water and wastewater utilities. 
The program includes grants of $50,000 for cybersecurity assessments and $100,000 for implementing cybersecurity upgrades. 
The regulations hold that facilities must implement common cybersecurity controls, such as limiting users’ access to only systems they need, prohibiting the use of default credentials and requiring complex passwords and multifactor authentication. 
Larger treatment plants, those processing at least 10 million gallons of water per day, are required to begin monitoring and logging network activity. 
And treatment plant operators will be required to complete cybersecurity training, every five years, to renew their certifications (though the regulations offer assurance that their total training hours will not increase). 
When officials unveiled the new cybersecurity regulations for New York water utilities in March, Colin Ahern, the state’s former cyber director, who recently became New York’s first director of security and intelligence, said the new rules would move the state “beyond reactive defense.” 
In at least two press releases, New York officials have said the SECURE program would offer just $2.5 million in grants, an amount that fell short of funding all of the water utilities that had expressed interest. 
The governor’s office did not immediately respond to an email asking why funding had been increased to $9 million, but in a press release Monday, Hochul said the recent wave of cyberattacks against water utilities, which have now reportedly been detected in at least 12 states, demonstrate that risks to the nation’s water infrastructure are “real and escalating.” 
This publication reported last Tuesday that more than 30 communities in Minnesota saw their water utilities briefly disrupted by the coordinated cyberattack. 
The federal government soon after announced that seven additional states had been targeted, possibly by Iran. 
And news outlets this week have raised the total number of affected states to 12, a list that also includes Georgia, Michigan and South Dakota. 
Notwithstanding the president’s confusing suggestion that Minnesota is somehow to blame for the cyberattacks, Iran has, for most analysts, remained the most likely perpetrator. 
Cynthia Kaiser, a former deputy director of the FBI’s Cyber Division, said that although the recent attacks haven’t been formerly attributed to any particular party, it’s “more than a guess” that Iran is responsible, based on its habit in recent years of targeting the United States’ water infrastructure. 
Kaiser, now a senior vice president at the cybersecurity firm Halcyon, said the extent to which New York has developed its cybersecurity policies is “commendable”  “they’ve taken it really seriously and I think that’s a great sign and example for a lot of other states.” 
The available tax bases and varying appetites for new regulations, versus enticements, she said, will influence how other states approach the challenge of shoring up the water sector’s security, but all states “need to focus on ensuring that their water sector is hardened and shored up.” 
Mauricio Papa, a computer science professor at the University of Tulsa, said in a recent interview that water lags behind other sectors, such as energy, on cybersecurity. 
Kaiser partially attributed the absence of standards to the lack of funding and technical staff available to municipally run facilities. 
And though Iran consistently exaggerates the outcomes of its cyberattacks  “Iran lies about its impact constantly,” Kaiser said  she recommended utilities take several remedial steps that don’t require a ton of technical know-how, such as disconnecting devices from the internet, changing default passwords and creating inventories of digital devices. 
The recent rash of cyberattacks has received widespread news coverage, a fact that might be attributed to its connection to the United States’ war in Iran and the attacks’ broad geographical scope. 
But there are plenty of cyberattacks against water utilities that have gone under-reported or weren’t reported at all. 
And there’s no guarantee their impact to the public will remain so negligible  “It’s death by 1,000 cuts,” Kaiser said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 2.4%StateScoop: 1.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Colin Wood: 3.6%StateScoop: 2.3%Availability Heuristic3.0%This article: 10.3%Colin Wood: 1.8%StateScoop: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic10.3%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Colin Wood: 2.1%StateScoop: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 1.9%StateScoop: 4.2%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 3.1%StateScoop: 3.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Colin Wood: 2.9%StateScoop: 2.0%Pessimism Bias7.0%This article: 14.2%Colin Wood: 2.9%StateScoop: 5.3%Negativity Bias14.2%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.9%StateScoop: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.9%StateScoop: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 1.2%StateScoop: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Colin Wood: 4.2%StateScoop: 1.2%Halo Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.4%Colin Wood: 3.2%StateScoop: 0.9%Recency Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.6%StateScoop: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.9%Colin Wood: 7.5%StateScoop: 2.0%Appeal to Authority12.9%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.5%StateScoop: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.2%Colin Wood: 6.3%StateScoop: 3.5%Hasty Generalization7.2%This article: 5.1%Colin Wood: 0.9%StateScoop: 0.2%Red Herring5.1%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.4%StateScoop: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 15.0%Colin Wood: 5.1%StateScoop: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion15.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.6%Colin Wood: 2.6%StateScoop: 0.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.6%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.0%Colin Wood: 0.9%StateScoop: 0.9%Anecdotal3.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.7%StateScoop: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.9%Colin Wood: 1.7%StateScoop: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.9%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 1.0%StateScoop: 0.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 7.0%Colin Wood: 1.9%StateScoop: 1.5%Indoctrination7.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 0.0%StateScoop: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Wood: 2.0%StateScoop: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

726 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers53%attributed speech343writer words
Selected voice

Mauricio Papa

100%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words7.0% of attributed speech45% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.