The President's Budget - Do the Math

By Lynn Thorp, National Campaigns Director Last week the President released his administration’s  2013 federal budget proposal.  Even though there is some important math involved the main thrust of the proposal is about sending signals and setting priorities.  In the face of the 191 bills and amendments to gut health and environmental protections which PASSED the U.S. House of Representatives last year, the White House budget proposal adds up pretty well. Taken as a whole, the White House budget tells us that this Administration doesn’t support the House efforts to gut water, air and health protections.  They think that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needs to keep doing its job implementing laws that Congress has passed and that other federal agencies have roles to play in protecting our most vital resources – clean water, clean air and us. The proposal includes increased funds for the research, program development, and enforcement of health and environmental laws.  In fact, one of the biggest increases in the EPA budget is for strapped state programs which bear the day-to-day responsibility of implementing federal laws including the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Clean Water Act.  Funding for the Agency’s drinking water program is increased, particularly important for Clean Water Action’s work watchdogging SDWA implementation. These aren’t always headline grabbing activities, but they’re critical to enabling government to carry out the intent of that law - clean drinking water from our nation’s public water systems. We’re also glad to see increased investment in small drinking water systems, who are often most challenged by the costs up-to-date drinking water treatment. We’re glad to see continued commitment to the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay and the Everglades.  Consistent with the recommendations of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board on the hydraulic fracturing process used in shale gas development, the White House budget includes funding for an EPA, Department of Energy and U.S. Geological Survey joint program. The proposal also includes encouraging and ambitious proposals to boost energy efficiency, our most promising new source of energy. Among new sources of revenue is one we like: eliminating $4 million of the annual federal subsidies that oil, gas and other fossil fuel producers have enjoyed for many years. What’s the bad news?  We’re especially troubled by cuts to the Clean Water and Drinking Water “State Revolving Fund” programs (SRF’s) which provide critical loans for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.  Clean Water Action will be advocating for restoration of those funds. The other bad news is that the budget that finally passes is rarely the one put forward by the White House and we anticipate a debate in which the smart choices in this budget get lost, as do the important protections they represent.  We will be standing up for programs that accomplish some of the jobs people expect of the federal government: protecting our health and the natural resources we need to survive and thrive.