Wednesday,
February 14, 2007
Water Resources Subcommittee Criticizes FY08 Budget Proposal for Corps,
EPA, TVA, Others
Source: US House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Rep. Johnson opened the hearing with the following statement:
Today, we will receive testimony on the President's budget request for Fiscal Year 2008, and its impacts to the programs and priorities of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. Unfortunately, the priorities reflected in this budget are contrary to the nation's priorities of protecting public safety and the environment, investing in the future, and ensuring continued economic prosperity. Quite simply, this budget is not adequate to meet the nation's needs.
The budget takes a "penny-wise, pound-foolish" view of the economy, making imprudent, short-term cuts to programs that have proven essential for long-term economic health. This administration fails to recognize that continued investment in water-related infrastructure is a key element for stimulating and improving the U.S. economy - an economy built on the investments of our predecessors. Cutting investment today and exploding future deficits can only serve to deny economic opportunity to future generations.
For example, the President's budget request for the Corps' construction account is close to $500 million less than the likely-appropriation for the current fiscal year. This amount is 45 percent below the Corps' own capability numbers, which represent the amount of work the Corps could carry out if funding were available. As a result, roughly half of the work that the Corps is authorized and ready to carry out will be delayed until funding is available - leading to further delay in completing essential flood control, navigation, and ecosystem restoration projects. I am certain that every Member of this Subcommittee can identify important projects that are targeted for slow-downs, reductions, or elimination in this budget.
I am also concerned about the impact of this budget on the Corps' ability to conduct vital operation and maintenance activities. For both navigation and flood control projects, the passage of time has taken a toll, and has created the real possibility of catastrophic failure for transportation linkages or flood protection projects.
As the nation learned in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the implications of failure of our navigation and flood control infrastructure can be devastating, not only to local economies, but to lives and livelihoods. Yet, this budget forces the Corps to do more with less money, and bets the continued reliability of our infrastructure on the hope that it will hold together for just a few more years. This is irresponsible.
These cuts are not limited to the Corps, but also in the budgets of the other Federal agencies represented here today. The small watershed programs of the Natural Resources Conservation Service are completely eliminated. There is no consideration of termination costs, no consideration of state or local investment, and no consideration of the potential threat to public safety that comes from shutting down these programs. As history has proven, the Federal government will either pay up-front to protect lives and property, or will pay afterwards to help rebuild and restore peoples' lives.
For the Environmental Protection Agency, this budget represents the lowest funding level requested by the current administration for several programs essential to safeguarding human health and protecting the environment. Most notable is the 36.6 percent reduction to the primary Federal program for investing in wastewater infrastructure - the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
As noted in this Subcommittee's hearing last month, annual needs for water infrastructure are estimated between $3 billion and $11 billion above current expenditures. Yet, this budget would eliminate almost $400 million in Federal grants to states for revolving loan funds. These reductions are simply unacceptable, and are the exact opposite approach to that taken by this Committee last week in approving legislation to authorize $20 billion over five years for the Clean Water SRF.
States and local communities have warned that reduced funding for wastewater infrastructure programs make it difficult to respond to failing wastewater infrastructure, and could force the delay of essential upgrades to improve water quality. Again, we all know of examples where local communities have been unable to fund necessary projects due to a lack of available funds.
The Superfund program fares no better in this budget. Since this administration came into office, the President's budget has almost halved the annual number of Superfund cleanups achieved by the previous administration. From 2001 to 2006, this administration has presided over a significant slowdown in the pace of toxic waste cleanups - from an average of 73 sites per year to just over 40. Unfortunately, this year, the President's budget announces it must revise its prediction for fiscal year 2007 downward from 40 sites to just 27.
Barring any further revisions, in fiscal year 2008, the budget forecasts only 30 sites will reach the construction complete threshold. These figures validate my prediction at last year's budget hearing of a second slow-down of the Superfund program, as insufficient funding to address contaminated sites further slows cleanups, and may force EPA to limit the number of future sites that can enter the cleanup program.
The budget also reinforces the troublesome findings of a 2004 EPA Inspector General's report that highlighted how limited funding for the Superfund program has hampered its ability to clean up toxic waste sites. EPA has responded that a major cause for this short-fall is that the remaining sites are more complex, and more costly.
However, most of these sites have been in the Superfund pipeline for decades, so it comes as no surprise that additional cleanup dollars were going to be necessary. Yet, for the last seven years, the President's request for the Superfund budget has been declining, failing even to keep up with the pace of inflation. Fewer resources for more expensive sites can only lead to slowdowns.
This budget, again, proposes that all Federal spending for the Superfund program will be from the general taxpayers, and continues the alarming trend of collecting fewer and fewer cost recoveries from responsible parties. This is not how the Superfund program was intended to be run when it was enacted. Gone are the days when the Superfund was a polluter pays program. Now the program is becoming less than super, requiring everyday taxpayers to foot the bill for cleaning up someone else's mess.
Unfortunately, for the American people, the list of cuts to important programs goes on-and-on. We cannot under-invest in the nation's infrastructure or its environment. We have an obligation to future generations to provide a cleaner, safer, and more secure world for them to live.
Contact:
Mary Kerr (202)225-6260