Environmental Budget Process Used for Political Posing

The U.S. House Appropriations Committee on Interior and the Environment has been having a grand ole time this summer in developing the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act 2012 (HR 2584). 

This bill, which was introduced to the full House on July 19, 2011, by Rep. Michael Simpson (R-ID), addresses funding of the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies through Fiscal Year 2012. 

While the funding portion of the bill is painful enough ($1.2 billion cut from Department of Interior’s request, $1.8 billion cut from EPA’s request), it’s the legislative riders that have been tacked onto to the appropriations bill that are provocative, to say the least. None of these riders decrease spending but focus on limiting use of funds and preventing the agencies from doing the work they are tasked with.  While the bill was not acted upon when the full House concluded business on July 28^th for its August recess, the bill and riders may be brought up for discussion and vote at a later date.

A sampling of the riders that were added to the bill:

• Section 431 imposes a one-year stay on EPA’s ability to propose or promulgate regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, prevents civil tort or common law lawsuits during this one-year period, and states that any permit applied for during the one-year period are not federally enforceable.

•  Sections 432 and 433 prohibit Office of Surface Mining funding to update the Stream Buffer Rule to protect streams from adverse effects impacts (habitat destruction and surface water impacts) of surface (strip) mining.  

• Section 434 prohibits EPA funding for regulation of coal ash (fossil fuel combustion waste), interrupting on-going EPA efforts to develop minimum standards for disposal and handling of coal ash, a toxic byproduct of coal burning that is the second largest industrial waste stream in the US after mining wastes. 

• Section 435 prohibits EPA funding to clarify or supplement guidance or rules under the Clean Water Act to address recent court decisions that broadened the scope of water defined as “waters of the US.”  This particularly affects the definition and regulation of wetlands.

• Section 436 prohibits EPA from developing and enforcing standards for power plants with cooling water intake structures that withdraw millions of gallons of water per day from streams for industrial process cooling, and return of water to the stream at higher temperatures, killing large numbers of aquatic organisms. 

• Section 439 prohibits EPA funding for regulations or guidance that would expand the storm water discharge program under the Clean Water Act at post-construction commercial or residential properties until after the EPA administrator submits a study on regulatory options, costs and benefits, and impacts on water quality of each option.

• Section 443 amends the Clean Air Act to limit EPA's permitting authority for Outer Continental Shelf drilling and would eliminate EPA’s discretion in considering human health and environmental protections when issuing these permits.

• Section 447 prohibits EPA from implementing any measures recommended by federal wildlife experts to protect endangered species from pesticides if the opinion identifies modifying, canceling, or suspending registration of a pesticide registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

• Section 453 prohibits EPA funding to develop or finalize a new greenhouse gas standard for automobiles after model year 2016. 
• Section 454 prohibits EPA funding to regulate certain levels of particulate matter (fine particles or soot) in the air under the Clean Air Act.

• Section 460 prohibits EPA funding to finalize guidelines on misleading information provided on pesticide labels.

• Section 462 directs EPA to perform a cumulative assessment of the impacts of regulations on air standards for ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and prohibits funding for rules or guidelines under certain sections of the Clean Air Act relating to climate change and on regulations for industrial/commercial boilers, heaters, and coal and oil-fired electric utilities.

• Title V (“Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011” hyuk!) amends FIFRA and the Clean Water Act to eliminate requirements for chemical companies and agriculture to obtain permits for pesticides entering waterways, under the incorrect assertion that FIFRA (which regulates the sale and distribution of pesticides) and CWA (which regulates pesticide applicators to ensure pesticides are used safety and appropriately) regulations are duplicative. 

Yikes!  I don’t understand what is thought to be accomplished by these riders.  Do these politicians (who probably know very little about the regulations they are targeting) really believe the economy will improve if environmental regulations are lessened? 

Do they believe that industries will self-regulate?

Or are they simply focusing (perhaps erroneously) on economics and not considering (or caring about) the less quantifiable and ethical issues of environmental quality? 

Or, more likely, are they just motivated by self-interest?

And with regard to improving the economy, what about all of the people who work in the environmental sector? 

Cutting environmental regulations may result in a loss of environmentally-associated jobs (such as mine).  A 2004 Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI) report (www.misi-net.com/publications/ca-final-report.pdf) states that, in 2004, protecting the environment generated $320 billion in total industry sales, $21 billion in corporate profits, 5.1 million jobs, and $46 billion in federal, state, and local government tax revenues. Those aren’t peanuts.

So, I come away feeling that the supporters of these riders do not have my best interests at heart, do not have the best interests of my co-workers at heart, do not have the best interests of the environment at heart and, in my opinion, do not have the best interests of the nation at heart. 

They may have the best interest of their wallets at heart but, you know what?  I expect more from our leadership, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise.  There is a lot of serious and hard work to be done in government and I wish these clowns would stop playing games.  I'd be even more upset if I thought any of these riders would ever make it into law.