Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - AMSA in the News
Budget impasse raises funding questions
EPA
Greenwire
10/17/2002
Darren Samuelsohn, Greenwire staff writer
The partisan, fiscal logjam that has stalled congressional action on the fiscal
year 2003 appropriations process raises a host of questions for the U.S. EPA as
it heads into a new operating cycle, especially if the chaos continues beyond
January, several sources said.
EPA officials said in interviews this week that they are still assessing the
effects of having to use last year's $7.9 billion spending level for efforts
beyond the start of the new fiscal year that began Oct. 1. To this point, the
sources said they have seen no major changes. "Everything pretty much is
business as usual," according to one agency source. But looking ahead, those
same EPA sources acknowledged concern that a drawn-out dispute on Capitol Hill
may cause trouble if lawmakers do not soon give the agency a new budget and
operating orders.
On Wednesday, both the House and Senate approved a stopgap continuing resolution
(CR) that will keep the government operating at fiscal year 2002 levels through
Nov. 22. It is unclear, however, if appropriators will actually clear the
remaining 11 spending bills, including EPA's funding ticket, in a lame duck
session.
Some Hill sources expect the spending issue to actually be shoved off until the
next Congress, a scenario that is especially likely should the Nov. 5 elections
lead to a change in party leadership in either chamber. At that point,
Appropriations Committee chairmen and ranking members would come in with a new
set of priorities for the spending bills that differ from the work already done
by the standing panels.
Politically, both parties are blaming each other for the big-picture fiscal quagmire, with Democrats incensed over last year's White House tax cut package and the Bush administration's February budget proposal that they say is out of step with the nation's domestic priorities, including the environment. Republicans argue that Senate Democrats were unable to advance a FY '03 budget resolution this year and instead have been working from a financial blueprint as much as $19 billion above what the White House would approve. Short of a change in power after the elections, compromise is the only way out of the mess, numerous Hill and EPA sources said.
As it stands, the $7.9 billion FY '02 level that keeps EPA operating is not such a bad thing compared with the Bush administration's $7.6 billion FY '03 budget proposal, said Wesley Warren, senior fellow for environmental economics at the Natural Resources Defense Council and a former Clinton White House Office of Management and Budget official. However, Warren also said EPA would be better off with a final product from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, which this year passed bills, H.R. 5605 and S. 2797, that would bump agency funding to $8.2 billion and $8.3 billion, respectively.
Warren said the CR may drive uncertainty into the lower levels of EPA's
operating program. For example, he said staff may be expecting a funding
increase for rulemaking packages they are working on but would suffer under
static funding. "The shifting around of funds in a patchwork kind of way makes
it difficult to track down who is getting soaked," he said. "The little bits of
money, a few million here and there, can make a huge amount of difference in
terms of a rule getting done or not. You could end up losing a year's worth of
work before this is over."
It is difficult to pinpoint exactly what rules may be hit due to the CRs, Warren
said. And EPA officials familiar with the budget and regulatory process said
that Warren is probably right on some low-profile issues, though they also
stressed that high-priority efforts would not be delayed. "It is going to be
different at every level," one EPA source said. "The basic problem with CRs is
you have a limited amount of new funding. You have to cover fixed costs.
Anything new and expanded can't be funded. It can delay things. It just depends
on what your schedule is."
Not likely to be affected by the CRs is the non-road diesel regulation for
construction and mining equipment. That rule is going through an unusual joint
collaboration between EPA and OMB and is expected in proposal form early next
year. And EPA's Clean Air Act New Source Review overhaul, a highly controversial
series of proposed and final changes, is in the review stage at OMB and many
sources believe it is poised for public release shortly after the November
elections.
The stopgap funding measures and Congress' inability to move an EPA budget has been good news for the agency in terms of its avoidance of so-called riders, language added to a budget that would order EPA not to work on a specific and usually controversial issue. In past years, Congress has blocked EPA on non-point source water pollution and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. This year, congressional Democrats were planning to shut down the NSR rewrite.
"A CR is good news for the agency" since it is a rider-free operating plan, said Robert Sussman, a former Clinton EPA deputy administrator.
Brownfields, drinking water security pinpointed
The one area where EPA is likely to find trouble comes under under new
initiatives. The Bush administration's budget proposal, which includes a $21
million grant program to target non-point source cleanup at 20 watersheds across
the country, is an example of what will be stalled until Congress completes its
work or specifically grants approval within the CR.
Federal grants that allow communities to clean up brownfields -- typically
small commercial or industrial sites, such as gas stations or machine shops --
may also be limited if the government is forced to continue operating at FY '02
levels. Last year Congress appropriated $96.8 million for brownfields and also
passed legislation reauthorizing the entire brownfields programs at up to $200
million a year beginning this year.
The Senate-passed EPA spending bill would provide the full $200 million in FY
'03, in line with President Bush's request. The House bill would provide
slightly less, $197.5 million.
An EPA official close to the brownfields issue said the agency is assuming that Congress will ultimately appropriate the $200 million even though it must currently operate under last year's levels. "Grant applications started coming in in September, but the grants aren't awarded until spring," the official said. "So as long Congress passes a spending bill by January, we should be OK."
Drinking water security improvements at small and medium-sized systems, a top priority since the Sept. 11 attacks, also will be delayed, said Michael Arceneaux, a spokesman for the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies. As well, the drinking water industry's Information Sharing Analysis Center, a secure clearinghouse for terrorist threats envisioned by the Clinton administration, will miss its target start-up date in December. Arceneaux said AMWA, the lead industry association on the ISAC, had hoped Congress would pinpoint $1.5 million(Greenwire, March 25).
Meantime, the 345 lawmaker-specific clean water infrastructure earmarks that
the House Appropriations Committee approved for FY '03 also are on hold. And the
Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund and its drinking water counterpart, both
of which represent the largest segments of the EPA operating budget, must
continue with last year's levels despite the fact lawmakers were angling to
increase both accounts.
Within the industry, the funding uncertainty has given rise to a number of
opinions on how the CR will affect infrastructure projects. Lee Garrigan, a
spokeswoman for the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, said the
budget impasse may hamper a variety of functions within any one specific
project. "It's very difficult to plan in this kind of atmosphere," she said. But
Rick Farrell, executive director of the Council of Infrastructure Financing
Authorities, said many in the industry anticipated similar spending levels in
the revolving loan funds between last year and this one so long as the issue is
resolved soon. "I don't think it is going to be a big headache for us," he said.
Staff writer J.Laws contributed to this report.