Advertisement

Analysis:Budget's eco priorities contested

By DAN WHIPPLE, United Press International

BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 5 (UPI) -- The Bush administration's proposed fiscal year 2005 budget for environmental protection issues squarely reflects its priorities in this area -- which, some environmental groups say, is precisely the problem.

The federal government's environmental protection programs are spread among several agencies, primarily the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior Department -- which houses the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management -- and the Department of Agriculture, which runs the Forest Service.

Advertisement

The administration has proposed $46.9 billion in funding for these programs in FY 2005, "the highest level ever requested," said Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House Office of Environmental Quality, in a statement accompanying the budget document. "This funding level is $1.4 billion, or roughly 3 percent, higher than the president's 2004 budget."

According to Connaughton, the administration "has embraced the philosophy that a growing American economy is the solution to improving our environmental quality. The funding priorities within this budget will advance the many performance-based initiatives President Bush has launched to clean our air and water, restore our lands, protect wildlife habitat and encourage the ethic and practice of personal stewardship."

Advertisement

Environmental groups have taken a different view of the FY 2005 proposal, however. A "Joint Environmental Backgrounder," prepared by seven environmental groups, found federal spending on environmental programs slated for a $1.9 billion reduction compared to FY 2004 -- or a 5.9 percent decrease. The analysis was prepared by Defenders of Wildlife, The Wilderness Society, Oceana, The Sierra Club, the National Parks and Conservation Association, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Friends of the Earth.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which develops and enforces clean air and water regulations, is scheduled for a 7.2 percent cut in its discretionary budget authority in 2005, compared with its 2004 authorization. In fact, the administration request for EPA is 1 percent lower than the budget for 2001.

The cuts seem to reflect a shift in focus by the administration, however, rather than some attempt to gut environmental regulation -- though in the eyes of some there is no real difference.

Regarding air quality, for example, instead of strict federal regulation, the administration wants to rely on its Clear Skies Initiative to use voluntary and market-based mechanisms to reduce the government's enforcement costs.

Meanwhile, the president has asked for increases in programs to reduce emissions from diesel-powered school buses and for Superfund chemical contamination cleanup.

Advertisement

"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," the backgrounder said. It suggested that a reinstatement of the polluter pays policy for Superfund cleanup would provide additional funds for that program and free up money for other enforcement efforts.

Interior Department funding would stay essentially flat next year, allowing for inflation, with an increase of about 2 percent in the budget request, to $10.8 billion. The same goes for two other Interior agencies with critical environmental responsibilities -- the FWS and the Park Service. The only substantial increase would go to BLM, which, among other things, processes energy development applications on public lands. The proposal would add 5.5 percent, or $1.7 billion, to BLM's budget.

One could say the administration was adding to its environmental challenges by pushing increased domestic fossil fuel production, which its proposal characterizes as "environmentally responsible development of the most promising oil and natural gas reserve areas within a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."

This item is included despite two Senate votes in the last two years not to permit ANWR development.

The administration's proposal says it is persisting in attempting to allow Arctic refuge oil production because the area's estimated 5.7 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil would reduce reliance on imports and have a negligible environmental impact. But the environmental backgrounder retorts the item's inclusion shows the administration is "out of touch with political and economic reality."

Advertisement

The budget also includes $1.2 billion for a five-year plan to develop hydrogen fuels, and about $447 million -- an 18 percent increase -- is set aside for conventional fuels research, such as the much-criticized Clean Coal program. There also is a proposed 1.2 percent funding increase for nuclear power, to about $500 million.

The Agriculture Department as a whole is slated for an 8 percent budget cut, to about $19.1 billion in 2005. But the principal environmental agency within USDA, the Forest Service, would receive a slight raise -- about 1 percent -- which still would leave the agency about 5 percent below the budget level it enjoyed when the Bush administration took office in 2001.

The Forest Service budget illustrates a jockeying for position that must be uncomfortable for both sides. The administration has made much of its Healthy Forests Initiative, which it says is designed to protect homeowners who live in the urban-wildland interface. The budget calls for $475 million for this program. At the same time, however, the administration proposes cutting federal assistance by 42 percent to local and volunteer fire departments -- the people who actually prevent and fight wildfires.

Environmentalists have opposed the Healthy Forests Initiative since its inception, but they also are criticizing the administration's budget request because they say it falls 40 percent below the amount authorized by Congress.

Advertisement

"They are prioritizing logging in the backcountry instead of protecting communities at risk," said Tiernan Sittenfeld, a spokesman for the Heritage Forests Campaign.

"President Bush's budget is focused on achieving results to conserve our natural and cultural resources, serve communities, improve recreational opportunities and promote partnered problem solving," said Interior Secretary Gale Norton.

"This budget is very revealing about the Bush administration's attitude about the environment," said Wesley Warren, director of the NRDC's advocacy center in New York City. "There is a huge, ballooning environmental deficit that is growing even more quickly than the budget deficit."

--

Dan Whipple covers the environment for UPI Science News. E-mail [email protected]

Latest Headlines