just a start.....
The Bush Administration’s FY2005 Budget for the Environment: Putting Our Future at Risk
The Bush administration FY2005 budget released on Monday, Feb. 2, cuts spending on environmental projects by $1.9 billion compared with FY2004 spending, according to an analysis by several environmental groups.
President Bush’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2005 once again launches an assault on environmental protection in this country under the guise of fiscal constraints. The reality is that environmental activities are often singled out for disproportional reductions relative to other domestic programs, putting the nation’s air, land and water at risk. At best, the budget mirrors the President’s neglect of the environment demonstrated in his State of the Union Address, revealing a disturbing lack of solutions for our ongoing environmental challenges.
Although changes in funding vary greatly from one environmental program to another, certain broad trends have emerged from the Bush budget. First, the administration has persistently sought to hide the true effect of its budget cuts through a sideshow of shell games, sleights-of-hand, and other deceptive gimmicks. Second, the administration has repeatedly undermined the use of science in decision making, placing it in the service of politics. Finally, and most distressingly, it has greatly enlarged the environmental deficit that we are leaving to our children.
Here’s a quick look inside the numbers:
· Total spending on environmental programs is slated for a $1.9 billion reduction (-5.9 percent) compared to FY 2004, falling from $32.2 billion to $30.3 billion. However, the cuts do not stop there; the environment takes another whack in the President’s long-term budget plan, dropping to only $29.6 billion in FY 2006, with significant additional cuts falling on land conservation efforts.
· The real funding impact is even greater when comparing the budget proposal to the amount of money needed in FY 2005 to keep government activities at the same level as in FY 2004 (taking inflation and other changing expenses into account). Then the shortfall rises to $3.2 billion, a drop of a full 10 percent below current levels. Over the long-run inflation places huge tax on available resources -- by FY 2009 the gap between current levels and those proposed by the administration widens to $7.0 billion, a loss of nearly a fifth of today’s purchasing power.
· Funding for the Environmental Protection Agency would fall by over $600 million dollars with the biggest impacts falling on water quality and science and technology programs. Land conservation would fall far short of current needs, with the greatest deficiencies occurring in land acquisition, wildlife protection, and parks funding. Certain critical clean energy programs would also be slashed, such as federal R&D into energy efficiency and solar energy, while unjustified subsidies to polluters continue.
The following summary illustrates some of the most significant environmental cuts proposed in the Bush budget by agency.
(Please Note: This document is a compilation of views from several different environmental organizations. However, not all of the organizations work on all of the issues contained in this document. Therefore, the organizations that contributed to this document do not necessarily have views on all of the programs discussed in it.)
Environmental Protection Agency Under Attack
The Environmental Protection Agency is a principal victim of the Bush Administration’s budget cutting hatchet. The budget’s overall funding request for FY 2005 ($7.76 billion) is down 7.2 percent from FY 2004 enacted levels ($8.37 billion) for the Agency, a cut in size second only to the Department of Agriculture. Although there would be slight increases for operating programs, diesel school buses, and Superfund cleanup, these positive changes are swamped by whopping cuts of $822 million in programs to protect water quality and of $93 million from EPA’s scientific research.
Water, Water, Everywhere (Except in the Bush Budget!)
The President’s budget has its largest cut in water quality infrastructure funding for reducing sources of pollution. This category includes a broad range of activities, including sewage plants, water purification facilities, and targeted pollution-prevention investments. The total investments drop from $2.6 billion to $1.8 billion, an $822 million dollar cut that represents more than 30 percent of the total for water infrastructure investments. When compared with the $450 BILLION in needs identified by EPA in the Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis of 2002, these cuts are difficult to justify.
The largest single reduction is in the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund (CWASRF), which loans money to states to pay for sewage treatment plants. President Bush's budget for CWASRF would decline by $492 million, from $1.34 billion in FY 2004 to only $850 million in FY 2005. The Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund, which supports construction of drinking water purification facilities, receives a slight increase, from $845 million to $850 million -- still far below annual needs.
The President’s budget takes no responsibility for the growing national needs of communities to protect and restore their watersheds. On top of the cut to the CWASRF the budget also reduces the funding available to states and municipalities for improving stormwater systems and reducing pollution in the rivers and streams. The budget cuts nearly $30 million from the non-point source pollution control program (Sec 319 funding), which deals with pollution running off of farms, feedlots, parking areas, and other diffuse sources. This administration is ignoring its own research and denying federal responsibility for the hundreds of billions of dollars that are needed to update aging infrastructure in order to keep our streams and rivers clean and disease-free.
Although the Administration’s budget proposes increases for specific watersheds, such as the increases of $35 million for the Great Lakes and $10 million for the Chesapeake Bay, these increases are dwarfed by the huge cuts in overall water quality funding levels for these places.
Research Takes a Hit
Although the Bush Administration frequently talks about basing policy on “sound science,” it is requesting significant cuts to EPA’s Science and Technology accounts. The cuts, totaling $93 million, represent close to a 12 percent cut from FY 2004. According to the Administration, the cuts will include reductions in air, water, and toxics research. Specific programs targets include research into the effects of chemicals known as endocrine disruptors, (down almost $5 million) “pesticides and toxics,” (down $7.7 million from the 2004 budget) and “human health and ecosystems,” (down $13 million from the 2004 budget).
Superfund: Polluters Make the Mess, Taxpayers Pay for Cleanup
The Superfund program was based on the principle that polluting companies should be held accountable for the messes they make. President Bush’s budget, while proposing a slight increase of $124 million above the FY 2004 budget for Superfund cleanup, effectively abandons the “polluter pays” principle by failing to call for reinstatement of the Superfund fees to pay for the program.
While Superfund would grow under the President's budget from $1.257 billion in FY 2004 to $1.38 billion in FY 2005, the taxpayer would pick up the entire tab through general revenues, since Superfund's trust fund was bankrupt as of the beginning of FY 2004, according to the General Accounting Office. Since Superfund's dedicated funding source (the trust fund) is no longer viable, the program draws money away from all other EPA programs for funding. The net result is that taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for the three out of ten Superfund cleanups where there is no responsible party, and EPA has no choice but to slow down toxic cleanups at other sites.
Natural Resources: Out of Touch with American Conservation Values
In good times and bad, America has always invested in the places and wildlife that make our country special. This budget, however, steps sharply away from that longstanding conservation tradition. Token increases in a few, politically-charged locations cannot hide its fundamental shortfalls in conservation of America's natural resources.
Healthy Forests? Where?
The President’s Budget requests $475 million for the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, almost 40 percent short of the congressionally-authorized level. Given the Administration’s arguments that the program is critical to protecting homes and communities from wildfires, such a dramatic shortfall is surprising. At the same time, the budget increases timber industry subsidies, cuts State and Private Forestry by 23 percent ($42 million), and neglects other vitally important conservation and restoration programs for our national forests, including: Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness; Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management; and Law Enforcement Operations.
Gutting the Land and Water Conservation Fund: There They Go Again
Land conservation funding suffers from familiar budget smoke and mirrors. Once again, the Administration claims to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation (LWCF) at $900 million, while actually providing only one-third of the money promised. LWCF has for decades been our nation's premiere tool to create and preserve parks, forests, wildlife refuges and open space, and to ensure Americans can enjoy them. It is so popular that, during the 2000 campaign, President Bush promised to fully fund LWCF. But his 2005 budget provides only $314 million for LWCF's real programs -- $220 million for federal land acquisition, and $96 million for stateside assistance grants. Just as the Administration did last year, it then tries to disguise the shortfall by arbitrarily declaring more than a dozen other, ongoing programs to be part of the LWCF. National treasures from the Everglades to our neighborhood parks will suffer from the resulting net loss in funds for expanding and consolidating parks, refuges and forests.
National Parks: Numbers Don't Add Up
The Administration has only provided 7 percent of the new $4.9 billion the President pledged, in 2000, to eliminate the maintenance backlog in the National Parks. Since taking office, the Bush Administration has only increased funding to address the maintenance backlog by approximately $350 million. They continue to insist that they are on track to meet the pledge, but those claims simply do not add up. As a result of the continued shortfalls, the public is losing access to American treasures like the Statue of Liberty, which has been closed for over 2 years.
Fish and Wildlife Service: Shell Games Shortchanging the Future
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), with its important mission of preserving the unique wildlife and plant species found in America, receives a few small increases; but these cannot hide the budget’s overall neglect of our valuable and vulnerable national resources. Two of the most important operating programs in the FWS -- Endangered Species and National Wildlife Refuges -- are seeing real or effective cuts. For example, the Administration is proposing a $9.8 million reduction from the current $68 million endangered species recovery budget, taking it below its $60 million level of three years ago – when President Bush took office. Some critically important wildlife-related grant programs – such as State Wildlife Grants and the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund – do receive needed increases -- but that does not make up for shortchanging the agency’s operating accounts.
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund: Industry Giveaways
Congress created the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund in 1977, requiring coal companies to pay a fee into a trust fund aimed at cleaning up abandoned mine sites. Since then the program has suffered from chronic underfunding, even though more than 7,000 mines abandoned before 1977 haven’t been cleaned up. The administration has touted an increase in funding for the program, but a closer look shows that the additional $53 million that the budget promises would pay off “certified” states such as Wyoming that have already completed reclamation of their mines. And while the budget correctly proposes to reauthorize the AML fund, the administration’s legislative proposal includes outrageous giveaways to the coal industry. It would reduce the fee paid by coal companies by 20 percent, shortchanging the fund by nearly $800 million over the next 14 years. And it would allow coal companies to use AML funds to purchase reclamation bonds, subsidizing the industry’s cost of doing business.
It Didn’t Have to be This Way: Abandoning the Conservation Trust Fund
This legacy of funding shortfalls and shell games didn't have to happen. In 2000, a bipartisan Congress enacted a roughly $2 billion-per-year conservation funding mechanism called the Conservation Trust Fund, designed to ensure that, in good times and in bad, the country always had enough money to meet our most important conservation, recreation, wildlife and preservation needs. But this budget abandons the Conservation Trust Fund, with the result that, across the nation, our parks, forests, wild lands and wildlife will suffer.
Other Natural Resource Needs: Agricultural Conservation Funding
The budget fails to live up to the promises of the 2002 Farm Bill by reducing funding for key agricultural conservation programs, including the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program and the landmark Conservation Security Program. The budget also would cut in half the $23 million in mandatory funds that the Farm Bill provided for the Renewable Energy System and Energy Efficiency Improvements program, which provides grants, loans, and loan guarantees to farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses.
Arctic Drilling Again: Don't They Ever Listen?
By assuming speculative revenues from oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the budget shows itself to be out of touch with political and economic reality. In a cynical political move carried over from last year, the Administration’s proposal claims to earmark some of the revenues from Arctic drilling for research into alternative, renewable sources of energy. Such cynical schemes ignore the fact that every recent poll has shown the American people don’t want drilling in the Arctic Refuge, and turn a blind eye to the political reality that the US Senate has rejected Arctic drilling twice since 2001. Assuming in the federal budget revenues at such highly optimistic prices, from an activity that is illegal under current law, seems to be the height of fiscal irresponsibility.
Remember the Blue Planet – Ocean and Coastal Funding
The United States controls the largest expanse of ocean of any nation in the world. Our oceans span 4.5 million square miles, an area 23 percent larger than the land area of the nation. And yet, two days after the federal budget was released, we know more about future spending for Mars exploration than we do for ocean protection on Earth, the “blue planet.” The Administration has still not released its official budget request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Here is some of what we do know:
National Ocean Service: Less Service
The National Ocean Service (NOS) is the primary federal agency working to protect and manage America's coastal waters and habitats. President Bush's budget request for FY 2005 proposes a debilitating cut of $215 million (35 percent) from 2004 enacted levels. Critical NOS programs and activities include research into harmful algal blooms, oil spill damage assessments, coastal zone management grants, national marine sanctuaries, and estuary research and conservation. A 35 percent reduction in these activities will jeopardize all Americans who use our beaches and coastal waters for swimming, boating, fishing and other recreation.
National Marine Fisheries Service: Need More Eyes on the Ocean
Recent scientific reports conclude that too many of our nation’s fisheries are on the brink of collapse. Sixty-five percent of our fish populations that are already depleted continue to be overfished. Unsustainable fishing practices that cause wasteful bycatch and habitat destruction continue to harm oceans. Funding to improve data collection, protect and restore fish habitats, minimize bycatch, end overfishing, protect at-risk sea life, and enforce regulations is desperately needed to bring oceans and coastal communities back to health. However, the Bush budget request calls for a $22 million decrease (3 percent) for the agency’s fisheries and protected species activities in FY 2005.
Pacific Salmon: Return to the Wild
Pacific Northwest salmon are a vital part of that region’s struggling economy and an important part of our nation’s history and commitment to the native peoples of this land. While the Administration touts modest increases in salmon funding, the truth is that salmon runs in the Pacific Northwest continue to decline. The Bush Administration budget requests a four percent decrease in spending for the once world-renowned salmon of the Columbia and Snake River basin – an amount that is at least a 40 percent shortfall from what federal agencies charged with the protection and restoration of these species indicate is necessary to implement the current salmon plan.
President Bush's budget proposes $100 million for assistance to states, tribes, and local governments to protect salmon runs through the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund. This is a $10 million increase above fiscal year 2004 enacted levels. However, in FY 2002, Pacific states received $110 million from the recovery fund.
Coastal Conservation Trust Fund: Out of Sight, Out of Mind
Bush's budget proposal completely ignores the mandate to fully fund the coastal portion of the Conservation Trust Fund, which was established in October 2000 under the Land Conservation, Preservation, and Infrastructure Improvement Fund (P.L. 106-291). While the CSC should receive $560 million in dedicated funding in FY 2004, the president's request seems to ignore the dedicated levels and the existence of this fund.
Cleaning Out Clean Energy Funds
America deserves a clean, safe and affordable energy future, but the FY2005 budget promotes an unbalanced plan tilted toward polluting, dangerous sources of energy. It would cut core renewable energy programs, as well as programs that reduce commercial and residential energy use. At the same time that it shortchanges these worthwhile programs, the budget proposes either increasing or maintaining current levels of spending on nuclear power and coal research and development programs.
Renewable Energy: More for the Distant Future, Less for Today
The administration has proposed a minor increase to the overall renewable energy budget. However, this deceptive increase funds unproven new initiatives while cutting or flatlining proven, core renewable energy programs. The budget provides an additional $13 million (16 percent) for the president’s hydrogen initiative, whose benefits will take decades to materialize and which will generate hydrogen from coal and nuclear energy. At the same time, the budget shortchanges proven clean energy programs that provide us a clear path toward energy independence today. Most notably, it cuts solar energy programs by more than $3 million (4 percent) and biomass by $14 million (16 percent).
Energy Efficiency
Despite an increase for low-income weatherization, the budget would cut overall energy efficiency and conservation by more than $2 million. The core energy efficiency line items for building and industrial technologies would be cut by $1.5 million (3 percent) and $35 million (38 percent), respectively. These programs help reduce energy usage, saving money for homeowners, consumers and industry.
Whopping Increases for “Clean Coal”The budget includes $447 million for the president’s Coal Research Initiative, a $69 million increase over 2004 levels. This includes a $109 million, or 60 percent, increase for the Clean Coal Power Initiative. This subsidy for the coal industry has already received more than $2 billion in taxpayer handouts, and the General Accounting Office has released seven reports documenting waste and mismanagement of the program.
Nuclear Energy: New Reactors
Overall, the budget increases funding for nuclear power by $4.7 million (1.2 percent). At first glance, its cuts to nuclear research and development line items appear to be a positive step. Upon closer look, however, the budget simply redirects funds from these programs, which supported existing nuclear power plants, into initiatives aimed at helping build a new generation of commercial nuclear reactors.
For example, the budget provides $30.5 million, a nearly $3 million increase above 2004, to the “Generation IV” initiative, which subsidizes the nuclear industry’s efforts to build the next generation of nuclear reactors. It also includes $166 million for the Idaho National Laboratory, an increase of $35 million over 2004 levels. The Department of Energy is expanding the INL, which will serve as the main lab researching the design of new nuclear power initiatives. Finally, the budget includes $46.2 million for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. This program would increase the threat of nuclear proliferation by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, which separates out dangerous plutonium.
DOE’s Environmental Management Budget: from Exhorting to Extorting
Within a funding request of $7.4 billion for DOE's Environmental Management program, the administration is proposing to withhold $350 million from cleanup of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) in Washington, Idaho, South Carolina and New York due to “… pending litigation that has called into question the legal authority of the Department to determine which waste streams generated by reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel should be disposed of in a geologic repository.” This so-called uncertainty stems from the fact that DOE broke the law when it tried to reclassify millions of gallons of the most radioactive waste in the world as “incidental” so it could abandon it next to important water supplies. The Natural Resources Defense Council and others sued DOE over this issue and prevailed in federal court.
By openly threatening hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to clean up high-level radioactive waste, the administration hopes that it can pressure Congress to reverse the court decision as a condition of receiving funding. Congress and the impacted states should ignore this brazen attempt to extort concessions and direct DOE to clean up its radioactive wastes. This penny-wise and pound foolish proposal could eventually cost communities and taxpayers huge sums of money in monitoring, containment, and restoration expenses unless the waste is cleaned up right the first time.
DOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
The budget request continues the administration’s penchant for placing nuclear rearmament ahead of nuclear nonproliferation and arms reduction. Funding for nuclear Weapons Activities increases by $332 million above 2004 (5.1 percent) to $6.85 billion, and to a projected $7.8 billion in FY 2009 (20 percent over five years). In current dollars, this far exceeds the average Cold War spending level. Including the current budget, annual spending on nuclear warheads and bombs has increased by $1.9 billion (38 percent) over the final Clinton administration budget. Overall, the Bush administration plans to spend $37 billion developing and maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile over the next five years, and another $4.1 billion on nuclear reactor development for the US Navy.
The budget also presses ahead with controversial programs for nuclear weapons Advanced Concepts, developmental testing of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator warhead, and detailed design-engineering of a proposed $2-4 billion Modern Pit Facility (MPF) to manufacture new plutonium components for nuclear weapons. In contrast, support for NNSA’s other primary mission, “Control of Weapons of Mass Destruction” in Russia and other countries, gets a paltry one percent increase to $1.4 billion. But even here there is less than meets the eye: more than 40 percent of the $1.4 billion “nonproliferation” request is for disposing of DOE’s own surplus weapon materials, including $368 million toward the construction of a multi-billion dollar plutonium mixed-oxide fuel plant that is not technically required to dispose of surplus weapons materials, and which itself represents an environmental and proliferation hazard and target for terrorist assault. |
