Budget office suggests deep staffing, funding cuts to EPA
Environmental justice programs, grants to states also are on chopping block
WASHINGTON — The Office of Management and Budget has suggested deep cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget that would reduce its staff by one-fifth in the first year and eliminate dozens of programs, according to details of a document reviewed by The Washington Post.
While White House officials have already indicated that they plan to increase defense spending at the expense of other discretionary funding, the new document spells out exactly how this new approach will affect longstanding federal programs that have a direct impact on Americans’ everyday lives.
“The administration’s 2018 budget blueprint will prioritize rebuilding the military and making critical investments in the nation’s security. It will also identify the savings and efficiencies needed to keep the nation on a responsible fiscal path,” it reads. Acknowledging that the steep cuts “will create many challenges,” the document adds, “it also can serve as catalyst for how the agency functions in the next 10 or 20 years or beyond. By looking ahead and focusing on clean water, clean air and other core responsibilities, rather than activities that are not required by law, EPA will be able to effectively achieve its mission.”
The plan to slash the EPA’s staff from its current level of 15,000 to 12,000, which could be accomplished in part through a buyout offer as well as layoffs, is one of several changes for which the new administration has asked agency staff for comment by close of business Wednesday. Multiple individuals briefed on the plan confirmed the request by the Office of Management and Budget, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The proposal also dictates cutting the agency’s grants to states, including its air and water programs, by 30 percent, and eliminating 38 separate programs in their entirety. Programs designated for zero funding include grants to clean up brownfields, or abandoned industrial sites; a national electronic manifest system for hazardous waste; environmental justice programs; climate-change initiatives; and funding for Native Alaskan villages.
The agency’s Office of Research and Development could face a cut of up to 42 percent, according to an individual apprised of the administration’s plans. The document eliminates funding altogether for the office’s “contribution to the U.S. Global Change Research Program,” a climate initiative that then President George H.W. Bush launched in 1989.
S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said in an email that the proposed cuts would devastate critical federal financial support for communities across the country.
“These cuts, if enacted by Congress, will rip the heart and soul out of the national air pollution control program and jeopardize the health and welfare of tens of millions of people around the country,” Becker said.
Craig Kenworthy, who serves as executive director of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and co-president of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said in an interview that air officials across the United States would not be able to meet their statutory responsibilities if their funding were cut that deeply.
“It’s basically saying to the local agencies, ‘So you still have to meet all the federal requirements, and then you’re going to lose a quarter to a third of your budgets,’ ” Kenworthy said, noting that he worries that environmental groups could sue them if they don’t fulfill their legal responsibilities. “I understand there may be some people in the new administration who may not like some of the current Clean Air Act requirements … but we still have to meet them.”
Any such cuts would have to be codified through the congressional appropriations process and would likely face resistance from some lawmakers. Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, who used to chair the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, said he did not think Congress would approve such a steep drop in funding.
“There’s not that much in the EPA, for crying out loud,” Simpson said.
Newly confirmed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has been a longtime critic of the agency and has insisted that one of his top goals will be to roll back key Obama-era regulations, cautioned this week that the particulars of the budget remain in flux.
“I am concerned about the grants that have been targeted, particularly around water infrastructure, and those very important state revolving funds,” Pruitt told the publication E&E News after Trump’s address to Congress on Tuesday.
Another key area targeted for cuts is the EPA’s enforcement and compliance division. The White House budget proposal outlines millions of dollars in budget reductions and says states should “assume more active enforcement roles.”
“Basically, the direction is to reduce enforcement, which is already pretty strained,” said Eric Shaeffer, head of the Environmental Integrity Project, an advocacy group. Schaeffer added that much of the enforcement responsibility already lies with states.
Environmental justice advocates were particularly alarmed at the cuts.
Cheryl Johnson, executive director of the group People for Community Recovery in Chicago, noted that the part of the South Side where she and her neighbors live is known as “the toxic donut” because it includes 200 leaking underground storage tanks and 50 landfills.
“Eliminating the environment justice department is like putting us in a chamber, to be disposed of,” Johnson said.