Lean Times Ahead for Environmental R&D Funding Environmental programs face a difficult future as Clinton and Congress debate the 1996 federal budget. JEFF
I
JOHNSON
n what is expected to be a lean year for fed eral spending, environmental research ap peared to do better than most programs in the Clinton administration's 1996 fiscal year bud get request. EPA research leads with a pro posed 15% increase, and modest gains were re quested for the National Science Foundation (NSF), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Biological Survey (NBS), and other environmentally related pro grams. Small cuts were proposed for Department of Energy (DOE) environmental management pro grams, with larger ones expected in future years. However, the president's spending request re leased in February is only a starting point, and the bud get must run a gauntlet of committees this spring and summer in a Republican-controlled Congress whose leadership has put forward plans to eliminate USGS, NBS, and the Bureau of Mines as well as DOE. They also oppose applied technology funding that would in clude EPA's Environmental Technology Initiative (ΕΤΙ), for which Clinton requested $52 million or a 75% boost. Complicating the process, however, are rescis sions to the current budget passed by the House Ap propriations Committee in early March. The rescis sions would hit EPA with $1.35 billion in cuts, mostly in loans available to communities under the Safe Drinking Water Act. DOE environmental programs would also be cut; members have proposed cutting current funding for environmental management by $45 million. Echoing a well-worn administration theme, John Gibbons, Clinton science advisor and head of the Of fice of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), de fended the request and its focus on "harnessing sci ence and technology to solve real problems and create real opportunities for all Americans." Look ing at total 1996 research funding of $72.9 billion, a 0.2% increase over this year, the administration barely spared federally funded basic research and devel opment (R&D) from severe cuts. However, in some cases, it provided increases for select programs. 1 8 0 A • VOL. 29, NO. 4, 1995 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Although overall basic civilian R&D funding is flat at $34.9 billion, it is now close to collecting half of all federal research dollars, thanks to Department of Defense R&D cuts. Funding for academic research takes a hit, moving up only 1.1%, although Gibbons said peer-reviewed research provides "more bang for the research buck." The biggest increases are re served for the administration's technology develop ment programs and partnerships, such as the "new generation of vehicles" (clean car) program at $333 million, up 35%. Gibbons defended the increases, ar guing that many other countries have similar tech nology programs and saying, "This is no time for us to waver on our commitment to applied research." OSTP's cross-agency breakdown of environment and natural resources R&D followed the general ba sic R&D trend with a 4% increase to $5.5 billion. How ever, a large $2.1 billion portion of this budget sec tion, global climate change, would receive only a 2% increase, falling short of matching inflation prima rily because of program cuts at EPA.
Congress warns of budget cuts In a Congress whose leadership opposes federal aid to help bring technologies to market and is suspi cious of environmental programs in general, even these modest increases may prove to be too much. At the first House hearing on environmental pro grams in the Clinton budget, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Southern California Republican, warned DOE officials against hoping to put off cuts until "to morrow." "Folks, 'tomorrow' has arrived with the 104th Congress," the new chair of the Science Sub committee on Energy and Environment said Feb. 14. "There will be budget reductions." Rohrabacher's subcommittee oversees civilian sci ence and technology programs at EPA, DOE, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Rohrabacher predicted a $500 million to $1 billion cut in the president's $8 billion request for the environmental elements of these programs. 0013-936X/95/0929-180AS09.00/0 © 1995 American Chemical Society
EPA's fiscal year 1996 budget request (in millions of dollars) Agency-wide activities by topic Change
Dv
Topic A l r
Total
Program
Water quality Drinking water
525.9 184.2 55 2 109 116.5 324.8 590.1
Radiation
Pesticides Toxic substances Hazardous waste Multimedia 3 0lls P|lls Management and support Office of Inspector General
636 3
23
763.6
from 1995 ·,. ? +3.5 +18.5 +11·8 +13.8 -9.7 +30 +147.2 +3·1 +96.9
33
+ 4 -5 3361.6 +391.3 1562.9 +131.7
Subtotal Superfund Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 77.3 +7.3 Water infrastructure 2365 -404.3 Total 7366.8 +126.1
Office of Research and Development, program Total
Program and Research Operations Research & Development Superfund Trust Fund
Abatement, Control, and Compliance Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Oil Spill Response Tota(
Change from 1995
140.1
+14.1
426.6
+77.4
5 9 8
_73
0.0
o.8 2.1 6 2 9 . 4
-0.7
0.0 +0.3 +83.8
Office of Research and Development activities by topic Change from 1995
Topic
Total
Air Water quality Drinking water Pesticides Toxic substances Hazardous waste Multimedia Superfund Leaking underground tanks Oil spills Management and support Total
106.7 21.2 21.7 13.6 15.5 22.8 357.2 59.8
+2.5 -1.7 -0.5 -0.2 -2.7 -3.9 +96.5 -7.3
0.8 2.1
0.0 +0.3
8.0 629.4
+0.8 +83.8
"Most multimedia growth is the result of redesignations and internal EPA fund shifts.
A few days later, Rohrabacher told Robert Huggett, EPA assistant administrator in the Office of Re search and Development, that ORD can expect to bear its share of cuts. He charged that increases in the ORD budget showed "a complete lack of seri ousness on the part of the administration to bal ance the budget." The EPA budget fared better at a hearing before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Com mittee, chaired by Sen. John Chafee (R-ME). Even en vironment-friendly Chafee, however, warned that EPA was not immune to cuts. The overall EPA budget remained flat at $7.4 bil lion, but funding to run EPA's programs moved up 13% to $3.4 billion because of a shift of $400 mil lion from water infrastructure programs. Senate com mittee members noted that, even with the in crease, EPA's proposed operating budget was $126 million less than in 1980, when adjusted for infla tion, despite 15 years and 12 new, complex environ mental laws. "You can't slap on new duties without expecting to pay for them," Chafee added following the hearing, and told ES&T that committee mem bers "don't seem to have their knives out for EPA." At first glance, the big winner in the administra tion's 1996 EPA budget proposal was R&D. The pres ident proposes boosting ORD's budget by $83.8 mil lion (15%), bringing the total to $629.4 million. However, most of the funds are accounting shifts from other programs, according to Huggett and EPA staff, and not new funds. The $52 million increase proposed for the ΕΤΙ is new money, according to an EPA budget analyst. The new ΕΤΙ funds would bring total grants for develop ing new technologies to $120 million. The program is popular and grant competition is keen, EPA offi cials noted. In the last round, 1500 projects were pro posed that sought $1 billion from the $68 million grant program. Whether ΕΤΙ will survive the new Con gress is uncertain, EPA officials noted. Republicans have not supported technology development fund
ing in the past, especially for the environment, and Rohrabacher and other Republican subcommittee members made clear they would not fund pro grams to aid "profitable businesses." In general, Huggett told the House subcommit tee that ORD's budget was a "redirection" of EPA funds. Some of these shifts are significant, nonethe less, and include changes to reorganize ORD. These include, he said, $77.4 million in funding for extra mural research grants and a new graduate research fellowship program.
DOE cuts may slow cleanups DOE's $17.8 billion budget remained flat with a $300 million increase for fiscal 1996. Within the depart ment, however, funds will move around consider ably compared to previous years. Environmental concerns will continue to con sume the largest share of the DOE budget, just over $7 billion, about 40% of the budget. National secu rity and weapons comes next with $4.9 billion (27.5%), followed by science and technology funds at $2.8 billion (15.7%), and energy resources at $2.7 billion (15.2%). Requested funding for the Office of Environmen tal Restoration and Waste Management (EM) ac counts for nearly all environmental spending, $6.6 billion. About 37% of the EM budget is proposed for waste management, 27% for environmental resto ration, and 23% to stabilize nuclear facilities and ma terials from former defense operations. In defending the budget, Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary quickly pointed out that EM is actually ask ing for $5.75 billion, a 4% decline from last year, be cause of a transfer within DOE of $850 million for EM to take over management of the Savannah River Site (SRS) in Aiken, SC, Mound Plant, OH, and the Pinel las Plant, FL, as well as managing high-risk facili ties at other DOE sites. "This is the first time [EM has] had a real decrease," said Eli Bronstein, a spokes person for the EM department. VOL. 29, NO. 4, 1995 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY • 1 8 1 A
O'Leary announced last December her intention to cut $4.4 billion from the EM budget over the next five years through contract reform and better management as well as stretching out cleanups in the hope that better and more efficient cleanup technologies will be available in the future. However, DOE's commitment to developing technologies is undercut by its proposed reduction in funding for EM's Office of Technology Development (OTD), DOE's environmental technology research and development arm. OTD faces a $27 million cut to $390 million. OTD funds are distributed to DOE labs for research on new environmental technologies. The environmental restoration component of the EM proposal increased only $200 million, despite the severity of contamination and the addition of new sites. Funds for Hanford (WA) would be cut some $140 million, Rocky Flats (CO) and Grand Junction (CO) are requesting $70 million less, and all Idaho facilities combined are reduced by $50 million. The department also intends to begin appropriating money by site rather than by mission as it does now. An integrated site cleanup approach will be tried for Rocky Flats in 1996, according to Thomas Grumbly, EM chief, and if it is successful future budgets will target other sites. This funding method would provide site managers with considerable flexibility concerning funding priorities. A site manager could extend cleanup schedules by redirecting funds from different programs, said John Hubbard, a budget analyst specializing in environmental management funding in the DOE comptroller's office. But the site manager and local EM personnel would have to negotiate with regulators and state officials to extend cleanup schedules. In mid-February, Crumbly and other DOE officials met with representatives of eight states with the largest DOE operations: Colorado, Ohio, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington. According to Jo Litt of the National Governors' Association, which is coordinating state and DOE negotiations, the goal is to work out realistic cleanup schedules and milestones based on new DOE budget forecasts. Rather than 30-year timelines, the picture has broadened to between 50 and 80 years for a cleanup, Litt said, adding that DOE has resisted setting schedules.
Interior defends science agencies Despite Republican calls to eliminate several science agencies within the Department of the Interior, Clinton's budget includes support for USGS, NBS, and the Bureau of Mines. "Cutting these agencies to save the budget is like burning down a library to save a city," said Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, when releasing the budget. Gordon Eaton, USGS director, went even further, calling the elimination "a little short of astounding." Eaton told ES&T that he has been talking to Congress about USGS's mission, and congressional support for the Survey is forming. "We are regarded as obscure; no one knows what we do," he said. USGS's budget is up 15% for 1996 to $586 million, but still falls below its 1994 budget. However, according to Eaton, the survey has saved money by eliminating 1130, or almost 11%, of its positions since 1 8 2 A • VOL. 29, NO. 4, 1995 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
1994, including a number of senior management positions. One good sign, according to Eaton, is that the National Water Quality Assessment Program—a nationwide water supply assessment program—is fully funded for 1996 and identified as a high-priority project for Interior. NBS funding is also up slighdy, but probably will face a tougher time in Congress. Babbitt strongly defended the program, declaring that NBS researchers would not enter private property without permission or rely on volunteers to collect data (except in well-established programs). Opponents of NBS fear that the program will lead the federal government into imposing rules on or taking away private property from individuals under the banner of endangered species. One proposed cut would end Interior's support of university-based water and mineral research institutes. The program began 20 years ago and supports some environmental research. Babbitt defended the funding elimination, describing federal support for these institutes as seed money. However, many of the 54 water and 32 mineral institutes had leveraged federal funds with state dollars, and the terminations could lead some institutes to fold, Eaton admitted. Funding for other science agencies followed a nogrowth trend. The National Science Foundation's 3% funding increase is the lowest increase in recent years, well below last year's 9% increase. NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research received a small 1.5% increase. NASA's request is a slight decrease over current funding (-1%), a trend that is projected to continue over the next five years. NSF Director Neal Lane said 1996 will be a year of "extensive evaluation and reassessment" of NSF programs in anticipation of continuing tight budgets in the future. Lane expects that NSF budgets after 1996 will see a slight decrease in funding. NSF's research (as opposed to facilities and instrumentation) funding maintains a healthy growth, however, climbing 8% in this budget. Overall individual grant support increased 7% to $1.67 billion. Environmental Biology, Bioengineering and Environmental Systems, and Chemistry Research Project Support all increased in the 7-9% range. The modest gain in NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, however, masks substantial gains in environmental research areas and major decreases in other programs. Climate and Air Quality Research grows 33%, including a fivefold increase in the "Health of the Atmosphere" program (see related story, page 168A), which investigates longterm regional air quality problems. Funding for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is proposed to increase from $267 million to $279 million, according to the Clinton budget. Next to come are further hearings before appropriation committees and action on the floor and in conference committees. In this year of new congressional priorities, the environmental science budget faces a challenging and uncertain future. Jeff Johnson is associate editor on the Washington staff o/ES&T. Editors Stephen Cole, Alan Newman, and Dani Shannon also contributed to this report.
