Posted on 02/07/2005 8:05:02 PM PST by RWR8189
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration on Monday proposed cutting the Environmental Protection Agency budget by nearly 6 percent to $7.57 billion in fiscal 2006 by targeting a program that helps cities replace aging sewage systems.
The EPA said the requested reduction was part of the federal government's overall belt-tightening, but environmental groups said it would hurt an important clean water program.
Total EPA funding would decline from $8 billion, which Congress allocated in the current budget year for the agency to protect the nation's air, water and land. In 2004, the EPA had a budget of $8.4 billion.
Acting EPA administrator Steve Johnson defended the plan as "a strong request that allows us to keep up the pace of environmental protections" and said the cuts were part of the administration's larger deficit-cutting plan. The White House is facing a record federal budget deficit.
Most of the EPA cut proposed for 2006 is from a reduction in funding for a revolving fund that states use to upgrade sewage and septic systems, and storm-water run-off projects. Funding for the fund fell $361 million, or 33 percent, in the Bush administration budget proposal.
Environmental groups say cities need the loans and grants to replace and upgrade aging sewage systems, some of which are over a century old.
"This year's cuts are really bad for clean water," said Rob Perks at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
But the lower request actually offsets higher funds appropriated by Congress in 2004 and 2005, which will maintain the total commitment to the program of $6.8 billion through 2011, an EPA spokeswoman said. "Federal funding of this program was never intended to be permanent," she said.
The decision to cut the state water program was "one of savings and making some tough choices," Johnson said.
The administration's budget plan would hold steady a separate $850 million state fund for clean drinking water.
The EPA budget also would increase by $47 million funding to clean up 600 toxic "brownfield" sites and add $28 million to remove toxic sediments from the Great Lakes.
Money for Superfund -- an industry program to clean up toxic waste sites -- would rise slightly to $1.28 billion.
Congress will debate and revise the White House budget proposal over the next few months before finalizing a government spending plan for fiscal 2006, which begins on Oct. 1.
Yeah, Scrap it.
Outstanding Bush-man!!! Should have been alot more -- then those liberal enviro-whackos would have to get a real job for a change, and not be living on OUR MONEY!!!!
Replacing older sewer systems is necessary. But it ought to be done on the local level. Federal handouts are an inherently wasteful way of handling things that state and local government should be doing.
If they don't want to set aside the money do it, then let them handle the resulting problems.
What dropped my jaw was learning that the EPA has armed officers.
What, do they think they're going to have pitched battles with kangaroo-rat poaching cartels?
The key is to make EPA more effective and not just throwing money at it. Prez Bush's plan sounds good to me. Fund necessary projects such as clean drinking water, toxic and waste cleanup, etc., and eliminate unnecessary ones that are waste of resources and tax money.
"Federal handouts are an inherently wasteful way of handling things that state and local government should be doing."
You don't like paying somebody to take your money, then paying somebody else to give part of it back to you--with strings attached?
Da noive of some people.
It's about time he cut something!
Pray for W and Our Freedom Winning Troops
Keep these stories coming. The more they object to the budget the better I like it.
"eliminate unnecessary ones that are waste of resources and tax money."
Start with the unconstitutional taking of private property without due process.
We need a constitutional amendment that swamps are to be called "swamps" and not "wetlands," jungles are to be called "jungles" and not "rainforests," and barking moonbat eco-whackos from Planet Stalin are to be called "barking moonbat eco-whackos from Planet Stalin" and not "environmentalists."
Yet, these programs always find a way to stay alive and then grow. Sort of like fungus.
I'm an environmental scientist and run my own consulting company (since 1991). This is a good idea and President Bush has real guts for even proposing a cut in the EPA budget.
Environmental quality would improve if the EPA budget were cut by 1/3. Most people would not believe what the EPA is involved with these days. Yes, they have their own police force (more like a commando unit). The EPA throws money at the UN and the third world like it was going out of style. The Environmental Justice program is a complete political sham. The agency bureaucracy is enormously bloated and wasteful.
The EPA exceeded congressional authority long ago and needs to be reigned in, for the sake of our environment as well as the budget. It was a regulation factory before President Bush, terribly infected with environmental activism from the Clinton era: a place for watermelons to grow (green on the outside and red inside).
The NRDC and EDF literally wrote government policy and regulations for years. Their lawyers were inside the agency working every day for the activist organizations. The EPA needs a good scrubbin' and this is an excellent start.
Bush deserves high cudos for this move. I am in awe of his courage.
It would be great to get rid of all the environmentalists. Cutting their funding is a good way to start.
"I got a better idea, eliminate the EPA completely, but this is a good start."
Bad idea. You breathe air and drinK water right?
A few (very few) environmental laws like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act actually do something useful - they internalize the costs of environmental externalities. You want an expert agency to draft the regulations that implement the specifics of the law. The real problem are laws like the endangered species act or CERCLA (aka superfund) which are a complete waste.
The EPA needs to be cut, but the quickest way to do that is to repeal alot of stupid laws. I'm a libertarian/conservative and realize you need some sort of EPA to prevent environmental externalities from getting out of hand.
Interesting context. Thanks for your insight. If as you say, sounds as though it will be hard to pass through Congress intact. Hope he succeeds.
Well, it ain't the EPA you're lookin' for, babe. This move by GWB is a first step in cleaning up the pollution of junk science. That stinks worse than sulfite liquor, and it has a tendency to persist much longer than mere physical pollution does.
Good news!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.