The President's FY05 Budget Proposes Deep Cuts in Environmental Protections

by Jaydee Hanson

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matthew 6:21 and Luke 12: 34, NRSV )

If you want to know the real priorities of an individual or a nation, take a look at their checkbook. Don't just listen to what someone says they intend to do; look at their actions. While budgets are often not followed, they are a good indicator of a person's — or nation's — intent.

The proposed Bush Administration budget for fiscal year 2005 would cut environmental spending by some $2 billion from the fiscal year 2004 budget.1 Its projections for later years include even deeper cuts. By FY2009, the cuts would increase to $7 billion less than FY 2004 figures in constant inflation adjusted dollars.2

The EPA budget suffers the most of all the environment-related programs in the FY2005 budget. The budget would cut EPA funding by $610 million dollars (from $8.37 billion in FY2004 to $7.76 billion).3 Although some programs see minor increases-i.e. diesel school buses and Superfund sites-these increases are offset by major cuts in water quality programs and scientific research.

Funding Cut for Water Pollution Programs

The biggest cuts are in the funding to help states control water pollution. The federal government provides grants to help communities and states invest in sewage plants, water purification, and other pollution prevention activities. Spending on water pollution control has lagged considerably over many years. The EPA estimates that more than $450 billion in spending is needed to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act and other water pollution control measures.4 Despite this, the Administration proposes to cut funding from $2.6 billion to $1.8 billion. In this category, the largest single reduction ($492 million) is for the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund, which loans states money for sewage treatment.

Runoff from farms, feedlots, suburban lawns, parking lots, and storm water systems are major sources of water pollution, but the Administration's budget cuts funds from the "non-point source" program designed to control these kinds of pollutants.5 Only a few high profile watersheds like the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay will get any new money, and then only $35 million for the entire Great Lakes region and $10 million for the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Superfund: Abandoning the Principle of 'Polluter Pays'

One area that should not be receiving an increase in the EPA budget is the Superfund program. The Superfund program, authorized by Congress in 1980, required the most polluting industries pay for the clean up of toxic waste pollution.

Congress set up a trust fund to receive the special taxes levied on chemicals that cause the worst pollution. President Bush has not requested that this tax program continue. As a result, polluting industries that have gained the most from the spoiling of the environment now no longer pay for the clean up of toxic waste sites. Instead, the clean ups of the most polluted sites are being paid from general tax revenues, because Superfund went bankrupt in FY2004. The Bush Administration budget proposes $1.38 billion for Superfund clean up in FY2005 — drawing money away from other EPA programs such as air, water, and basic research.

EPA Research Funds Reduced

The EPA science and technology research budget is slated for $93 million in cuts. The reductions cut across air, water, and toxics research, but target many of the programs that are researching the links between human health damage and environmental pollution. Research into how chemicals function as "endocrine disruptors" would be cut by $5 million; research into the toxic effects of pesticides would be cut by $8 million, and research on human health and ecosystems would be cut by $13 million. 6 These three programs alone total $26 million of the $93 million in research funding cuts.

Energy Programs Emphasize Coal, Oil, and Nuclear Power, but Cut Renewables

Research on renewable sources of energy will be cut in the proposed budget. Solar programs would be cut by more than $3 million, and biomass programs cut by $14 million, to provide for the increase in the hydrogen program. Energy efficiency programs would be cut by more than $2 million.7

"Clean Coal" programs would be increased by $178 million, despite General Accounting Office reports on the waste and mismanagement in the programs. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) found that despite receiving $2 billion since 1985 in government funding, emerging clean coal technology will not reduce acid rain over the next 15 years (and money management mistakes had been made.8

Nuclear Power, Nuclear Waste and Nuclear Weapons Will Take the Lion's Share of the Energy Budget

Nuclear power programs are being increased by $4.7 million; but the real story is the redirection of funds to pay for the next generation of taxpayer-supported nuclear power plants. The budget would provide $30.5 million for "Generation IV" nuclear reactors as a subsidy to the nuclear power industry. It also provides $166 million (a $35 million increase) to the Idaho National Laboratory, the main lab for new nuclear power initiatives. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, which recycles spent nuclear fuel into plutonium, would get $46.2 million.

In FY2005, The Department of Energy's Environmental Management program (the radioactive waste clean-up program) will again get the most funding — $7.4 billion.10 Still, the Administration is threatening to withhold $350 million of this total while it tries to get Congress to change the laws defining which wastes need to be cleaned up. The federal courts ruled that the Department of Energy could not reclassify millions of gallons of radioactive wastes as "incidental." (By classifying the wastes as 'incidental,' the Department of Energy would not have to use the more expensive disposal methods.

The fastest growing part of the Department of Energy budget is nuclear rearmament. In FY2005, the administration proposes to increase nuclear weapons funding to $6.85 billion, up 5.1 percent. It plans to increase this total to $7.9 billion by FY2009. Annual spending has increased by $1.9 Billion a year in the last three years. Moreover, the Bush Administration plans to spend another $37 billion on nuclear weapons over the next five years. 11

Efforts to clean up nuclear weapons and to dispose of the nuclear weapons of other states have taken a back seat. Control of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' in Russia and other countries gets only a one-percent increase, to $1.4 billion. Even this disposal plan hides another new $400 million nuclear reactor that is supposed to consume the nuclear weapons material as fuel. This would lead to the construction of a large plutonium fuel plant. Another $4.1 billion would be spent to develop new reactors for the U.S. Navy.12

The Bible reminds us that to those whom much is given, much is expected. God gave us a marvelous planet with wonderful natural systems. We have an obligation to care for and keep this treasure. The environmental and energy budget for the US in FY2005 does not yet help us keep our obligations to care for the earth. Time is another gift of God's to be used well. Delaying cleaning up our environment wastes time. In the environment as in our personal lives, when we do something is often as important as whether we do it. Putting off till tomorrow our environmental duties is not good stewardship. Today's costs for good stewardship seem high; tomorrows will be higher still, both in terms of dollars and in terms of human health and environmental integrity.

General Assembly

[Excerpts from this policy appear below. For the complete policy in "Hope for a Global Future: Toward Just and Sustainable Human Development," see PC(USA), 1996, pp. 524-587.]

[The 208th General Assembly (1996) of the Presbyterian Church (USA):]

... urges all citizens and policy makers of the United States to acknowledge that even with full-cost pricing, very efficient technologies, and an accelerated shift to renewable energy sources, just and sustainable human development still requires moderate consumption by the affluent and good stewardship of the planetary ecosystems.

In "Call to Halt Mass Extinction" (213th General Assembly, 2001):

The resolution calls on the United States, other governments, national and multinational corporations, and others to desist from the large-scale projects, such as old-growth timber cutting and forest fragmentation, megadam construction, and oil exploration and drilling in vulnerable regions, that devastate ecosystems, threaten wildlife survival, and displace indigenous people. In addition, the resolution called upon the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration, together with industry, agriculture, and individuals, to face the compelling urgency to promote energy conservation and efficiency and also to accelerate the transition from a fossil fuel base to a solar-hydrogen base for the economy.

Water:

From "Restoring Creation for Ecology and Justice," the resolution passed by 1990 General Assembly:

A. Basic Policies in Support of Water Quality

1. Increased federal, state, local, and private funding for the investigation of air, water, and ground contamination . . .

2. The pursuit of a three-pronged strategy - education, regulation, and economic incentives - to combat environmental pollution.

4. Placing the burden of proof that water quality is not degraded on those who discharge or introduce potentially harmful substances to the environment.

B. Implementation of Policies

1. The vigorous protection of remaining wetlands through the enforcement of existing laws.

3. Tighter restrictions on point sources of water pollution and illegal dumping.

4. Increased efforts to address the problem of pollution from urban and rural runoff.

5. Research on methods of preventing and controlling ground water contamination.

7. Continued study and greater control of acid rain and airborne contaminants that enter surface water, in coordination with air quality authorities.

8. Increased federal funding for national estuary planning and action.

9. The upgrading of municipal water systems.

3. Area Three: Wildlife and Wildlands

A. Basic Policies in Support of Wildlife and Wildlands, Consistent with the Spirit of the Following Aphorisms

• Keep wildlife wild and free.
• Avoid irreversible change.
• Protect and expand remaining public wildlands.
• Optimize natural diversity; optimize natural stability.
• Increase options for experiencing natural history.
• Do not "discount" the future value of the environment.
• Respect life, the more sentient the more respect.
• Think of nature as a community, more than a commodity.

B. Implementation of Polices

1. Preserve wildlands in all the diverse kinds of American ecosystems, including wildlands near urban areas; and restore degraded wildlands, reintroducing all the original native fauna and flora where possible.

4. Stop cutting remaining pristine forests on public lands.

5. Provide interpretation and economic support for those persons whose lives and jobs must be altered in the interest of long-range environmental quality.