WSP12001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

From: NACO WUhington Office To; O.n Parker O.te: Q(l8195 Time: 20:51:10 P.ge 2 of 2 o .... River Salinity Drop to $lM. This is a major reason why we support merging our hey cost-share programs W together in the Farm Bill and funding them through the Commodity Credit Corporation as S.854. the .r:,. LugarlLeahy Bill would provide. We still have a few more stops to go before final passage of the agriculture budget. Anything can happen. For example, the President did threaten to veto it a wbile back. We1l keep you posted. VA-HUD APPROPRIATIONS: EPA BUDGET The Senate Appropriations Committee took action last week on V A-HUD appropriations; specifically. the EPA budget. If you1l recall, the House was particularly harsh on EPA, cutting the $7 billion budget by 34% and severely hampering the agency's ability to carry out its responsibilities to severn! environmental laws including tbe Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act by imposmg riders on the appropriations bill, dictating strict conditions. Last week. the Senate V A-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee acted and was followed the next day by the full Senate Appropriations Committee in approving their version of the V A-HUD budget. Severn! features of the EPA budget of interest to tbe Conservation Partnership include the following: . The overall EPA budget was cut 23%. to a total of $5.6 billion. as opposed to the House's 34% cut to $4,89 billion. . The 16 grant program budget items. including those of interest to conservation districts such as Section 319, have been combined into one budget account called Program and Infrastructure Assistance. Tbis account also includes the State Revolving Loan Program. It appears that Section 319 will total $100 million as it did on the House side, one of the few bright spots in this story. . The State Revolving Loan Program would total $1.5 billion, down $1 billion from the current $2.5 billion level. The Senate Appropriations Committee specified that $1 billion of the Loan Fund will be used to assist the Clean Water Act and that $112 billion will be used to assist the Safe Drinking Water Act. The House had indicated that the entire $1.5 billion would be used to assist the Clean Water Act. . Another new budget account was approved by tbe Senate Appropriations Committee called Program Administration and Management. It includes all personnel costs pLus funding for monitoring and standards and the Gulf of Mexico Program. The Senate is silent on any specific instructions or amounts for the Gulf of Mexico and monitoring and standards. The House specifically mentioned and zeroed these two items. In this case. it appears that being silent is good news in such a negative climate, especially to those of our members and partners interested in the Gulf of Mexico. ~The Committee also specified full budget requests for the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Everglades !i.1lestoration and National Estuary Programs. . The oppressive riders imposed by the House were dropped by the Senate. In general, the Senate Committee has treated EPA significantly better than the House. although the full Senate has not yet taken action. Assuming it approves the action of the Appropriations Committee, going to conference with the House will surely result in compromises that will end up cutting more than the 23% assessed by the Senate, perhaps in the 28% range. Certainly one factor in such a drastic cutback. in addition to the overall call for deficit reduction, is the feeling openly expressed by the majority party that EPA is responsible for much of what is perceived by many to be excessive regulation. By any measure. programs in the E{'A budget have provided important tools to many conservation districts across the country to implement projects with Section 319 grants, tbe Clean Lakes Program and severn! others, often with the district serving as the focal point.