E N V I R O N M E N T A L P R O T E C T I O N N E T W O R K ______________________________________________________________________________ The Trump Budget Aims to Cripple Environmental Protection Executive summary: The Trump Administration claims that it supports clean air and water, but its proposed FY 2018 Budget tells another story. Their deep cuts would slash the Environmental Protection Agency’s Budget 42% after accounting for level funding of two large water infrastructure grant programs. EPA’s staff, located in 10 regional offices, headquarters, and a variety of labs around the country that are essential to carrying out EPA’s life-saving responsibilities, would be reduced by one in four, to 11,611 in one year. The smallest workforce since 1982 would be tasked to administer 7 major congressionally mandated programs including implementation of significant 2016 revisions to the Toxic Substances Control Act. Budgets of programs protecting the environment will be further stressed to cover the cost of shrinking their staff. Despite the Administration’s intent to push more responsibility to states, grants to states for that purpose are cut 30%. The punishment inflicted on EPA is deeper than any other major federal agency. Staff layoffs most likely will hit younger, more recently hired staff, decimating the next generation of environmental professionals and crippling EPA and state efforts for years to come. Summary of the Proposed FY2018 EPA Budget The Trump – Mulvaney – Pruitt proposed Budget for FY2018 would severely affect almost every aspect of EPA’s programs and operations. This summary identifies some of its most significant impacts. As more details are revealed, EPN will update and revise its analysis. • EPA’s total Budget would be cut by 31% from $8.244 billion in FY 2017 1 to $ 5.655 billion, 2 returning EPA to inflation-adjusted funding levels 3 not seen since virtually the inception of the EPA in 1970. • The Budget would cut EPA’s workforce by 3,785 “Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)”, from 15,396 to 11,611, or by nearly 25%. It would leave EPA with its smallest workforce since 1982 4 despite significantly increased responsibilities since that date. Impacts would be felt in the 10 regional offices, the Research Triangle Park (RTP) North Carolina facility that houses 15 EPA offices, including EPA's major center for air pollution research and regulation, and EPA 1 The FY 2017 numbers that the Congressional Submission uses are the so-called “Annualized CR” estimated prior to congressional passage of a full-year “CR.” The latter, available on May 2, is not used by OMB/EPA because the detailed distribution of resources (via an “Operating Plan”) is not yet complete. The actual FY 2017 resource levels are somewhat larger in most cases. 2 EPA’s FY2017 budget includes a $ 100 million one-time appropriation of funds for drinking water systems, designated for Flint, Michigan. That amount is included in the FY2017 base budget figure above, provided by EPA. Source: CRS Analysis of OMB Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year 2016, Historical Tables, Table 5.4. 3 4 Historical Note: The period of FYs 1981 – 1984 had a noteworthy dip in workforce; prior to this, workforce was not so small since 1977. Environmental Protection Network George Wyeth Ruth Greenspan Bell EPN.Main.Mailbox@gmail.com george.wyeth@gmail.com ruth.g.bell@belldc.net labs across the country, including Ada, Oklahoma, Cincinnati, Ohio, Gulf Breeze, Louisiana, Athens, Georgia and Las Vegas, Nevada. • • • • • • • For perspective, the “savings” from cutting $2.6 billion from EPA’s current Budget of $8.2 billion is one four-hundredth of the Trump Administration’s overall proposed $1.15 trillion Budget for discretionary spending. The $2.6 billion taken from EPA would be less than two days’ worth of the $638 billion requested defense Budget. Most of EPA’s Budget would be cut 42%: Because the Budget's selective cuts do not reduce (but actually slightly increase) two of the largest items in EPA’s Budget – the state revolving funds for building clean water and drinking water infrastructure – the proposed cuts would actually amount to a 42% cut to the balance of EPA’s Budget, which includes all EPA programs and grants to state environmental agencies that are tasked to implement these programs. Some cuts are deeper than signaled in earlier Administration documents: For some programs, reductions were even greater than had been anticipated based on documents revealed previously. Specifically, all of the Agency’s principal accounts – “Appropriations”- are smaller than originally proposed in March, with the exception of the Superfund program 5. While the overall request is approximately the same as before (5.665 billion vs 5.7 billion), special set-asides (“rescissions,” etc.) will require additional cuts to many programs. EPA staffing slashed: The unprecedented nearly-3,800 person cut to staffing is on top of significant reductions in the previous five years. This would dramatically disrupt the Agency's ability to do its work to protect the environment and almost certainly involve layoffs. Because government rules for layoffs generally protect older workers, the Administration’s proposal will deprive EPA not only of the staff it needs now but many of the next generation of environmental professionals, crippling EPA for years to come. Core programs deeply cut: The administration has stated that EPA should focus on its traditional core programs. However, under this Budget those programs would be cut as follows: 6 o Air and radiation program – 44.8% o Water pollution protection program – 25% o Drinking water protection programs – 18% o Pesticide and chemical review and regulation – 22.7% o Hazardous waste management – 37.5% 7 o Hazardous site cleanup (Superfund )– 28.1% Most EPA climate programs eliminated including climate research and 15 voluntary partnership programs that facilitate greenhouse gas reporting and energy efficiency. Funding, relative to the severe challenge represented by climate, was relatively low to begin with. A full list of eliminated climate programs is in Appendix A. Science, a core EPA function that supports regulation, permitting and enforcement, slashed nearly in half (47%). 8 This area would be the most severely cut, contrary to verbiage in the Budget 5 $15 million was restored to the March proposal for Superfund but overall the program is still $326 million less (-30%) than the previous year. 6 There is no single budget line for these programs. A full listing of the budget lines on which the percentages above are based is attached. 7 Includes Underground Storage Tanks and Inland Oil Spill Programs. Environmental Protection Network 2 EPN.Main.Mailbox@gmail.com • • • • • document acknowledging the important role of science in carrying out EPA’s regulatory, permitting and enforcement responsibilities. The damage is not only to EPA but to scientists across the country. Grants to states and tribes slashed: Categorical grants that support the core air, water and other programs are cut by 30% despite Administration assertions that states should play a larger role in implementing environmental laws. A host of other types of grants are eliminated entirely. As a result, total state grant funding is cut by over 50% (excluding the water revolving funds that pay for local infrastructure). Since federal funding provides, on average, more than 25% of the operating budgets for state environmental programs, the Budget will cripple permitting, implementation and enforcement. A complete list of changes to state grants is attached. Enforcement of environmental laws undermined: The Budget would cut EPA’s enforcement program by 24%, reducing resources for compliance assistance and enforcement. Superfund enforcement – a program that recovers cleanup costs paid by taxpayer from the responsible polluting parties – would be cut 40 %, including elimination of the office responsible for cleanups at federal facilities such as former nuclear weapons production sites.9 In addition, proposed cuts in grant funding for state environmental agencies, which bring most enforcement cases, would reduce their capacity to monitor pollution and enforce against violators of pollution control requirements. EPA enforcement more than pays for itself; since 2000, $6.4 billion in penalties have been recovered to the US Treasury or to restitution of victims. Geographic programs eliminated: The Budget zeroes out geographic programs that help clean up and protect important ecosystems. These include the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound, San Francisco Bay, the Florida Keys and other south Florida ecosystems. Many of these programs were developed because states could not solve cross-state and international issues alone. After decades of bi-partisan support for assisting states with difficult and often cross-boundary pollution problems, the Budget puts that burden squarely on the states while, as noted above, cutting funding for states. More than 50 EPA programs eliminated in total: The Budget would completely eliminate over fifty separate programs. In addition to the climate and geographic programs discussed above, these include programs that serve low income and disadvantaged communities that are disproportionally damaged by pollution (“Environmental Justice”); programs that help communities manage diffuse pollution sources such as oil, grease and toxic chemicals from urban runoff that can foul drinking water (Non-Point); and Water Sense, a labeling program that makes it easy for Americans to find products and homes that save water. The history of voluntary programs illustrates the power of EPA as a convener and its credibility as a source of technical information to work informally with industry and others to reduce pollution. A complete list of programs being eliminated is attached. Other notable points: 8 Measured via the four “core” Office of Research and Development (ORD) program categories, 98% of the ORD budget. 9 A separate office for federal facilities is required because EPA cannot bring court cases against other agencies; instead it uses a different set of administrative enforcement processes. Ostensibly the budget would retain the federal facility enforcement function within another office, but all positions currently dedicated to it would be eliminated and the other office would have to assume its specialized duties while being reduced in size as well. Environmental Protection Network 3 EPN.Main.Mailbox@gmail.com o $68 million for the cost of letting people go: “Workforce Reshaping” is an Orwellian euphemism for the buyouts and other HR costs resulting from the proposed huge reduction in staff. Budgets of programs protecting the environment will be further reduced to cover the cost of shrinking their staff. o Key professional support functions are also reduced. Although smaller than some other cuts, these are significant and undermine the agency’s legal review and capacity to contribute scientific analysis as EPA carries out its congressionally-mandated responsibilities.  Office of General Counsel -cut 12.5 %;  Administrative judges -cut 13%, likely resulting in delays adjudicating cases relating to enforcement orders or permits.  Science Advisory Board -cut 7.9%; o One of the few increases is for economic and regulatory analysis (increased 4.6 %). o Not Disclosed in the Budget - Increase in the Administrator’s personal security detail: according to press reports, one budget increase would bolster the Administrator’s personal security detail for 24/7 coverage, a first for an EPA Administrator. ATTACHMENT A: ELIMINATED PROGRAMS ATTACHMENT B: BREAKDOWN OF CUTS TO MEDIA PROGRAMS ATTACHMENT C: LIST OF STATE GRANTS Environmental Protection Network 4 EPN.Main.Mailbox@gmail.com ATTACHMENT A EPA PROGRAMS TO BE ELIMINATED UNDER THE TRUMP BUDGET Climate Programs Climate Programs are not consistently identified by name or current funding level in the budget. Virtually every program element containing climate change activities in Air and other programs were excised of them. The eliminations include 15 voluntary partnership programs: • Energy Star (rates consumer products for their energy efficiency) • Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program • Green Power Partnership (to increase the use of renewable electricity in the US) • Combined Heat and Power Partnership (promotes use of wasted heat, saving both energy and water and reducing pollution) • Natural Gas STAR (voluntary oil & gas industry program to reduce methane leaks) • AgSTAR (helps farmers recover biogas from livestock wastes) • Landfill Methane Outreach Program • Coalbed Methane Outreach Program • Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership (to reduce release of potent greenhouse gases) • SF6 * Reduction Partnership (voluntary EPA/electrical industry effort reducing leakage) • Responsible Appliance Disposal Program • GreenChill Partnership (food retailers reduce refrigerant leaks that destroy the ozone layer) • State and Local Climate Energy Program • Center for Corporate Climate Leadership • SmartWay (shipping goods with less fuel and less pollution) Eliminated budget-identified climate programs include the Global Change Research (“sub-program”) Geographic and Water Programs • Chesapeake Bay • Gulf of Mexico • Lake Champlain • Long Island Sound • Puget Sound • San Francisco Bay • South Florida • Great Lakes Restoration • Other = 2 locations (Lake Pontchartrain, S. New England Estuary) and “other activities”) • State Grants for Non-Point Source Pollution (per CWA § 319) – by itself, $ 164 m eliminated) • National Estuary Program and Coastal Waterways – EPA staffed programs * SF6 - Sulfur hexafluoride, an excellent electrical insulator, is also an extremely potent and long-lived greenhouse gas. Environmental Protection Network 5 EPN.Main.Mailbox@gmail.com • • • • • • Beaches Protection –EPA staffed program and grants Fish Protection - (ditto ) Marine Pollution – ( ditto ) Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages grant Mexico Border - internal program and Infrastructure Assistance grant Water Quality Research and Support Grants – traditional Congressional add-on almost never requested by Agency Other Programs and Special Initiatives • Lead Grants to States • Lead Risk Reduction Program • Pollution Prevention – internal program and state grants • Radon state grants and Indoor Air Radon programs (for the 2nd leading cause of lung cancer in the US10) • Radiation Protection program (in general) • Underground Storage Tanks state grants • Leaking Underground Storage Tank Prevention • Alternative Dispute Resolution • Endocrine Disruptors (studies substances that adversely affect the hormone system) • Environmental Education • Environmental Justice • Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection • Indoor Air: Radon Program • Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) Waste Minimization and Recycling • Indoor Air: Reduce Risks • Regional Science and Technology • Pesticides – Science Policy and Biotechnology Advisory Panel • Small Minority Business Assistance • Stratospheric Ozone Multilateral Fund • Targeted Airshed Grants • Trade and Governance • STAR Research Grants (“sub-program” across four ORD core programs) • WaterSense (“sub-program” of Surface Water Protection – voluntary partnership program to label water-efficient products) See also the EPA Congressional Justification (on EPA’s website) for its own account of “Eliminated/ Discontinued Programs” (pp 726-732) 10 Health Effects of Exposure to Radon: BEIR VI, Committee on Health Risks of Exposure to Radon (BEIR VI), National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Environmental Protection Network 6 EPN.Main.Mailbox@gmail.com ATTACHMENT B CUTS TO EPA CORE PROGRAMS UNDER THE TRUMP BUDGET Program (includes HQ offices and related regional programs) Air and Radiation - Science and Technology (S&T) , Clean Air - S & T, Indoor Ai r and Radiation - Environmental Program and Management (EPM), Clean Air - EPM, Indoor Air and Radiation Hazardous Substance Superfund, Indoor Air and Radiation Air and Radiation Total Water Quality and Ecosystems EPM, Water Quality Protection EPM, Water: Ecosystems Water Quality and Ecosystems Total Water: Human Health Protection - S & T, Drinking Water Programs - EPM, Water: Human Health Protection Water: Human Health Protection Total Pesticides Licensing and Toxics Risk Review - S&T, Pesticides Licensing - EPM, Pesticides Licensing - EPM, Toxics Risk Review and Prevention FY2017 Annualized Budget (in $1000s ) FY 2018 Proposed Budget $ Change % Change 116,319 85,708 - 30,711 - 26.4 % 5,986 3,339 - 2,647 - 44.2 % 272,589 143,167 - 129,422 -47.5% 27,583 2,257 - 25,326 - 91.8% - 1,981 - 100.0% 1,981 0 424,458 234,471 - 190,087 - 44.8 % 210,017 174,975 - 35,042 - 16.7 % 47,967 257,984 18,115 193,090 - 29,582 - 64,624 - 61.7 % - 25.0 % 3,512 3,657 - 145 - 4.1 % 98,319 80,044 - 18,275 - 18.6 % 101,831 83,701 - 18,420 - 18.0% 3,122 2,274 - 848 - 27.2 % 102,167 85,526 - 16,641 - 16.3 % 92,347 65,036 - 27,311 - 29.6 % Environmental Protection Network 7 EPN.Main.Mailbox@gmail.com Pesticides and Toxics Total Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Underground Storage Tanks and Inland Oil Spill Programs - EPM, RCRA - EPM, Underground Storage Tanks (UST) - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 11 - Inland Oil Spill Programs 12 RCRA, UST and Inland Oil Spills Total Hazardous Substance Superfund Total 13 Enforcement S&T, Forensics Support EPM, Compliance Monitoring EPM, Civil Enforcement EPM, Criminal Enforcement Superfund, Compliance Monitoring Superfund, Criminal Enforcement Superfund, Forensics Support Superfund: Enforcement Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement Inland Oil Spills, Compliance Monitoring Inland Oil Spills, Civil Enforcement Enforcement Total 197,636 152,836 - 44,800 - 22.7 % 104,678 11,273 73,093 5,612 - 31,585 -5,661 - 30.2 % - 50.2 % 90,028 46,550 -43,478 - 48.3 % 14,965 12,824 - 2,141 - 14.3 % 220,944 138,079 - 82,865 - 37.5 % 906,213 651,211 - 255,002 - 28.1 % 13,643 101,472 10,444 86,431 - 3,199 - 15,041 - 23.4 % - 14.8 % 171,051 46,225 140,470 40,341 - 30,581 - 5,884 - 17.8 % - 12.7 % 993 605 - 388 - 39.0 % 7,110 4,161 - 2,949 - 41.5 % 1,087 708 - 379 - 34.9 % 150,342 6,976 94,418 0 - 55,924 - 6,976 - 37.2 % - 100.0 % 139 124 - 15 - 10.8 % 2,408 2,266 -142 -5.9 % 501,466 379,968 121,478 - 24.2 % Continued on next page 11 Does not include funds allocated to enforcement and research, which are listed elsewhere. Does not include funds allocated to enforcement and research, which are listed elsewhere. 13 Does not include funds allocated to indoor air radiation protection, enforcement, and research, which are listed elsewhere. 12 Environmental Protection Network 8 EPN.Main.Mailbox@gmail.com Research S&T, Research: Air and Energy S&T, Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources S&T, Research: Sustainable Communities S&T, Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability Superfund, Research: Sustainable Communities Superfund, Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability Leaking USTs, Research: Sustainable Communities Inland Oil Spill Program, Research: Sustainable Communities Research Total 91,731 30,592 - 61,139 - 66.7 % 107,230 68,520 - 38,710 - 36.1 % 139,709 54,211 - 85,498 - 61.2 % 126,688 84,189 - 42,499 - 33.5 % 14,005 5,655 - 8,350 - 59.6 % 2,838 5,305 + 2,467 + 86.9 % 319 320 +1 + 0.3 % 663 503 - 160 - 24.1 % 483,183 249,295 -233,888 - 48.4 % Environmental Protection Network 9 EPN.Main.Mailbox@gmail.com ATTACHMENT C CUTS TO STATE GRANTS UNDER THE TRUMP BUDGET All $ are in thousands (000) Grant Clean Water Non-point Source pollution control Drinking Water - PWS Supervision Drinking Water –UIC Air – State & Local Air Quality Management Radon Clean Water Pollution Control (including Monitoring funds) Wetlands Pesticides Program Implementation Pesticides Enforcement Lead Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance Pollution Prevention Chem. Safety – Toxic Substances Compliance Tribal General Assistance Program (“GAP”) Underground Storage Tanks Tribal Air Quality Management Environmental Info Beaches Protection Brownfields Multipurpose TOTAL FY 2017 Annualized Budget FY 2018 Proposed Budget Change % Change 164,601 0 - 164,601 100 101,769 10,486 71,238 7,340 - 30,531 - 3,146 30 30 227,785 8,036 159,450 0 - 68,335 - 8,036 30 100 230,367 14,633 148,787 10,243 - 81,580 - 4,390 35.4 30 12,667 18,106 14,022 8,874 11,050 0 - 3,803 - 6,966 - 14,022 30 38.5 100 99,503 4,756 69,652 0 -29,851 - 4,756 30 100 4,910 3,437 - 1,473 30 65,352 45,756 - 19,606 30 1,495 0 - 1,495 100 12,805 9,628 9,531 47,654 20,960 8,963 6,739 0 38,558 0 - 3,842 - 2,889 - 9,531 - 14,296 - 20960 30 30 100 30 100 1,078,986 597,347 - 678,006 63 PWS – public water systems UIC – underground injection controls - preventing injection wells from contaminating underground sources of drinking water Environmental Protection Network 10 EPN.Main.Mailbox@gmail.com