Earlier this year, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) announced their Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 proposed budget. The agency’s press release regarding their proposed budget was titled: EPA’s FY 2016 Budget Proposal Increases Support for Communities to Deliver Core Environmental and Health Protections
EPA is proposing to eliminate programs totaling $44 million dollars. However, keep in mind that this proposed reduction is about .005% of their 8.6-billion-dollar budget (the total requested is $452 million above the agency’s enacted level for FY 2015).
Here are just a few of the Agency’s priorities
Making a Visible Difference in Communities Across the Country. The EPA states, in part, that this will include, “…new cross-program efforts, including 20 full time equivalents for Community Resource Coordinators, $2 million for Circuit Riders, and $5 million to coordinate efforts at the local level in overburdened and vulnerable communities…”
Comment: As we have stated more than once in the recent past, the focus on Environmental Justice presents some concerns to the regulated community, especially higher profile manufacturing, chemical, and petroleum companies looking to expand operations.
Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality. The EPA states, in part, “EPA’s FY 2016 Budget includes $239 million for efforts to cut carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases through commonsense standards, guidelines, and voluntary programs.”
Comment: One recent example of how technology, innovation, and free markets help improve environmental quality is the use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling to reach trapped, natural gas. The use of the rather abundant and cheap natural gas has naturally reduced our GHGs. Let’s hope the power of the free market is part of the “commonsense” equation.
Protecting the Nation’s Waters. The EPA states, in part, “The Water Infrastructure and Resilience Finance center is part of the Build America investment initiative, a government-wide effort to increase infrastructure investment and promote economic growth by creating opportunities for state and local governments and the private sector to collaborate on infrastructure development.”
Comment: As it relates to water issues, while we have some misgivings about the recent WOTUS ruling, there is little argument that our water and wastewater infrastructure is in need of investment. From old, combined-sewer overflows to outdated, wastewater-treatment facilities this dated infrastructure is having a direct impact on our lakes, rivers, and streams. Spending money on these updates may not be “sexy,” but they would likely provide real pollution reduction.
Protecting Our Land. The EPA states, in part, “In FY 2016, we will increase the Superfund Remedial program by $34 million to accelerate the pace of cleanups, supporting states, local communities, and tribes in their efforts to assess and cleanup sites and return them to productive reuse, and encourage renewable energy development on formerly hazardous sites when appropriate. We will expand the successful Brownfields program, providing grants, and supporting area-wide planning and technical assistance to maximize the benefits to the communities.”
Comment: Increasing the pace of cleanups would be welcomed news for all communities involved in remediation efforts – Superfund, FUDs, or any other government-led program. What we would add to this equation is, when the affected community takes over the investigation, you see real progress. As way of example, our client, the City of Salina, KS, et.al, a FUDS community, took over the investigation from the federal government, but the federal government maintained their financial commitment. The progress since this was turned over to the community has been remarkable. Perhaps this can be a model for future sites going forward.
In closing, we need to put in perspective our “environmental progress.” We are, even by the EPA’s own admission, a far cleaner and healthier nation. For those in the regulated community, the question becomes: How much more reduction and regulation is necessary? And how do you respond when an overzealous regulator seeks to impose what might be considered “unreasonable” permit conditions or cleanup standards?
We, like we suspect most of you, are in favor of a clean environment to pass along to our progeny. But should the regulator’s demands become unreasonable, just keep in mind that we are no shrinking violets when it comes to negotiations, and we are more than happy to assist you in your negotiations.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me (ahahn@dragun.com) at 248-932-0228, ext 134.