BOARD01367

• Board Meeting Date: 3/16/2004
• Description: CWCB Director's Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

USGS Budget -- $215.7 million, a decrease of$13 million. There is an increase of$375,000 to
support scientific projects needed by other agencies within Interior such as the Ground Water
Resources Program, There is an increase of$800,000 as part of the Water 2025 Initiative to fund
studies to assess ground water availability and use, develop improved methods for characterizing
aquifers, and provide scientific information that will help water resource managers. There is a
$200,000 increase for the National Water Quality Assessment (NA WQA) Program,

The President's budget also proposes cuts, The proposal eliminates all USGS funding for the
Water Resources Research Institutes and the Cooperative Water Program (gaging) is cut by $1
million,

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) - NRCS's budget request is down to
$710.4 million, including a cut in the snow survey program. The Ground Water and Surface
Water Conservation Program gets an increase to $81 million and the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) gets a $97 million increase,

U,S, Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) - an increase of $22,6 million to $1.3 billion, It includes
increases of$5 million for endangered species listings and $7.5 million for the Partners for Fish
and Wildlife Program, It proposes increases for USFWS cooperative grant programs, with $20,4
million more for the Landowner Incentive Program, $2,6 million more for Private Stewardship
Grants, and $8.4 million more for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund,

Fnnding for the USFWS and the Upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation
Program and the Platte River Recovery Program was cut from the President's proposed
FY 2005 budget. Those cuts would effectively eliminate U.S. Fish and Wild life
participation in those programs. The effected states have all indicated that they will lobby
congress to have those funds reinstated.

EPA - the total budget is $7,76 billion, The request for state and tribal assistance grants for
environmental programs and infrastructure is down to $3,2318 billion, there is $850 million for
Clean Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) and another $850 million for Drinking Water SRFs,
the same amount requested last year, There is also $50 million for high priority water and
wastewater facilities along the border with Mexico and $40 million for Alaska Native Villages.
The request includes $25 million for an Environmental Information Exchange Network, $17
million under 106 for water quality monitoring activities and $25 million for competitive
targeted watershed grants,

Army Corps of Engineers -- $4,215 billion in new funding for the Civil Works Program. The
request includes $3,3 billion from the general fund, $610 million from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund, $115 million from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, $37 million from Special
Recreation Use Fees, and (under proposed legislation) $150 million from the direct financing of
hydropower operation and maintenance costs by three federal power marketing administrations,
The Corps Operation and Maintenance account tops the budget request at $1,926 billion,
followed by $1.4215 billion for the Construction account; $270 million for Flood Control,
Mississippi River and Tributaries; $167 million for General Expenses; $150 million for the
Regulatory Program; $140 million for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, to
clean up hazardous wastes at Department of Defense sites; $90,5 million for General
Investigations; and $50 million to prepare for and respond to major flood and storm emergencies.

ESA Litigation: On February 11 th, a federal court in San Diego, California ruled that farmers in
Kern and Tulare Counties were entitled to $26 million from the federal government because of
water withheld from them under the Endangered Species Act to protect the endangered winter-
run chinook salmon and the threatened delta smelt. Environmental groups called the ruling a
"stealth attack" on the ESA that could gut efforts to preserve species in the future by making the
ESA to costly to enforce,

.

.

.

4