Funding proposals for EPA The Reagan administration continues to push down the budget of this embattled agency The circumstances and issues surrounding the EPA operating budget for fiscal year 1984, beginning Oct. 1, 1983, seem nearly identical to those of the fiscal 1983 budget (see ES&T, Vol. 15, No. 12, 1981, pp. 1403-1406). The most important similarity is that in both years the administration attempted to lower the EPA budget by a substantial margin. Last year, the decrease was accomplished primarily through EPA Administrator Anne M. Gorsuch's very low initial proposal, which was purportedly lower than the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was likely to request. This year, the attempt is being made mainly through O M B . Gorsuch's proposal was 6.5% lower than the fiscal 1983 appropriation, but the O M B passback, or counterproposal is much below that, 16% lower than fiscal 1983. It remains to be seen whether Congress will approve this cut or any cuts at all. The EPA operating budget, which does not include Superfund or the sewage treatment construction grants program, has been reduced substantially since Reagan came to office. The fiscal 1981 budget was $1353 million; in 1983 it was $1037 million. Gorsuch proposed a 1984 budget of $975 million to OMB, and O M B countered with a proposal of $870 million (see Figure 1). This O M B counterproposal is 36% lower than the 1981 budget, or 48% lower when corrected for inflation. Even when inflation is not taken into account, the proposed budget for 1984 is more than a third below the 1981 appropriation. These cuts are proportionally far greater than those most other agencies have experienced. Additionally, they follow a very confusing situation produced when Gorsuch agreed to a $ 106 million rescission of fiscal 1981 agency funds. Even though Congress refused to accept this rescission, the disruption and confusion created in the administration of EPA programs was enormous, especially for temporarily discontinued research projects. As a 0013-936X/83/0916-0121A$01.50/0
"Here, Anne, I'll show you how to really fix it "
consequence of these budget decisions, EPA program managers have had to react to constantly shifting budgetary limitations. Reductions in personnel The O M B passback also provides for another large personnel cut. Notwithstanding many statements by EPA spokespersons that claim otherwise, personnel levels at EPA have dropped dramatically since Gorsuch became the agency administrator and will fall even further if the O M B passback is approved. When Reagan came to office in January 1981, he inherited 14 075 full-time equivalency positions, permanent as well as nonpermanent, at EPA. There were 10 396 included in the appropriation measure for fiscal 1983, and the O M B passback provides for 9340 in fiscal 1984. This would mean that another 1000 workers would be cut, bringing the total loss to about 4735 employees, or one-third the initial number. Gorsuch has repeatedly stated to
© 1983 American Chemical Society
reporters and outside audiences that the number of workers has decreased by only 1000 since she came to office. For this, she is comparing the number of permanent full-time employees on two dates within the Reagan era (the two white bars on Figure 2), not the number of workers at the beginning of the Reagan administration to the appropriated personnel for fiscal 1983. The actual figures are shown on the bar graph, which indicates that the total loss of permanent full-time employees is 2935, not 1000. Only nine months after Reagan came to office, 1000 employees had been lost, many through attrition and resignations purportedly resulting from low morale in the agency. Understanding personnel counts at EPA is made quite complicated by the number of position categories in use. Since its formation in 1970 under President Nixon, agency responsibilities have grown at a faster rate than the number of employee positions assigned to the agency. EPA managers Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 17, No. 3, 1983
121A
under all administrations between Nixon and Reagan have dealt with this serious problem by employing a strategy that created a flood of nonpermanent part- and full-time positions. Included among these are a number of specialists on multiyear assignments from state governments and universities under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA). Gorsuch has directed that new IPA agreements should not be initiated and existing ones should be allowed to expire. Such personnel practices have resulted in EPA's losing the expertise of many hundreds of nonpermanent specialists over the past two years. In accordance with Gorsuch's planned attrition policies, these employees have not been replaced. The areas that were cut the most by the O M B passback are the drinking water program, state environmental grants, and research and development. The drinking water program was cut by 267 people, according to Save EPA. Gorsuch, however, appealed the drinking water budget to the Cabinet Council on Natural Resources and the Environment. As a result the program cuts in this area were rescinded. The proposed sharp reductions in state environmental grants, an average decrease of 28%, are shown in Figure 3. In the past, state and local agencies have relied on EPA for about half of their budgets. With such large cuts, it is hard to imagine how state agencies could take on more responsibility—an expressed goal of the Reagan administration. Research and development The overall research and development program was also reduced by O M B . EPA sources say that Gorsuch requested a fiscal 1984 research and development budget of $222 million, but that O M B allowed only $175 million, a decline of 22% from the fiscal 1983 budget of $226 million. O M B made drastic cuts in the funds provided for outside research and development, carried out primarily in universities. In the past two years, this budget has been cut more sharply than that for any other area. The fiscal 1981 appropriation was $270 million, the fiscal 1983 funds were $119 million. For 1984, Gorsuch requested $121 million, but in the passback, O M B reduced the funds to $89 million (see Figure 4). If OMB's proposal is approved by Congress, the net decline from the beginning of the Reagan era will be 67%, not counting for inflation. At a recent meeting of the Clean Air 122A
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 17, No. 3, 1983
FIGURE 1
The EPA operating budget has been reduced substantially since Reagan came to office $ 1 3 5 3 million
Source: Save EPA
FIGURE 2
During the past two years, the number of full-time permanent employees at EPA dropped by a large percentage
a The 1983 Gorsuch request was 8126.8. Congress appropriated 8546.6. Sources: b° Appropriated 1981: EPA fiscal 1982 Budget Request to OMB. c End of 1981 and end of 1982: Justification of Appropriations Estimate for Committee on Appropriations, fiscal 1983. à Appropriated 1983: Analysis of fiscal 1983 Appropriations Bill, Office of the Comptroller, U.S. EPA.
Scientific Advisory Board, Dr. Morton Lippmann of New York University's Institute of Environmental Medicine spoke of animal experiments at his university that had to be abandoned in midstream, resulting in the sacrifice of many laboratory animals and a waste of the money already spent. He also said he was convinced that EPA is not
now supporting sufficient research to support regulatory action. The Reagan administration has repeatedly asserted that its first priority is to strengthen EPA science. Other areas slashed Some programs proposed by EPA were eliminated altogether in the
FIGURE 3
OMB has made deep cuts in several areas of the EPA state grants program8
Fiscal 1983 EPA request, fiscal 1984 OMB passback a
In millions of dollars Source: Inside EPA
FIGURE4
OMB made drastic cuts in 3the EPA funds provided for outside research and development 270
a In millions of dollars Sources: b Fiscal 1981 appropriation: As recorded in the EPA fiscal 1982 budget request to OMB. c Fiscal 1983 appropriation: Report of the Comptroller, U.S. EPA, Oct. 20, 1982. a Gorsuch proposal and OMB passback: Save EPA.
passback. N o funds were provided in the air program for the development of control technologies that could be used by energy sources such as power plants to reduce pollution. In the past, funds have been appropriated for this purpose, and EPA has made important contributions to the development of several control technologies that are
now used commercially. EPA took the concept of the wet S 0 2 scrubber and made it work. The agency also improved the electrostatic precipitator so that it can collect more particulate matter at lower cost. Coal-cleaning methods were developed in part by EPA. O M B would like private industry to develop pollution control tech-
nologies. But the present regulations provide very little incentive for it to do so. Under the current administration, the technology-forcing aspects of the regulations are largely overlooked. For the most part, the present regulations require the use of existing control technologies, not those that might be developed in the future. Therefore, the only incentive private industry has is to sell in a shrinking market the devices that already exist. Several other programs were eliminated by O M B . No funds were provided for a multiyear epidemiological study to determine the health effects of exposure to particulate matter. In addition, funds were axed for the development of toxicological data on new toxic substances. The reason O M B gave for withdrawing these funds was that "no new major chemicals are anticipated in the marketplace in fiscal 1984." This seems highly unlikely; every year for the past three decades, important new chemicals have been introduced. A major confrontation The budget process is ongoing and the situation is very likely to change in the next few weeks. EPA's request and the O M B passback are part of the budget negotiations that will continue until Reagan announces the fiscal 1984 budget in late January. Sources say that Gorsuch plans to appeal OMB's passback by trying to restore $100 million of the funding cuts. As this article went to press, the final EPA budget negotiated between EPA and O M B was announced. It was $949 million, down 8% from fiscal 1983 levels. This means that $81 million of the budget cuts were eliminated. Therefore, OMB's passback is important, not because it is the final budget and likely to be approved by Congress—it is not—but because more than any other single document, it represents the Reagan administration's views about environmental matters. Congress must of course approve the final EPA budget. Once again this year, confrontation and disagreement between Congress and the administration over this budget are likely to be important issues. Because the administration's position is probably quite different from that of Congress, it may take a very long time to pass the EPA appropriation bill. The administration "will have a pretty bitter budget battle in 1983, and will lose, especially on environmental issues," one Congressional staff member said. —Bette Hileman Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 17, No. 3, 1983
123A
