U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): FY2017 President’s Budget Request

April 6, 2016

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): FY2017

President’s Budget Request

Since FY2006, Congress has funded EPA in the Interior,

Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations. Title II

of Division G of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016

(P.L. 114-113), provided $8.14 billion for EPA for FY2016,

$452 million (5%) less than the President’s request. The

FY2017 request for EPA was $8.27 billion, $127 million

(2%) more than the FY2016 enacted appropriations but

$325 million (4%) less than requested for FY2016. Trends

in requested and enacted appropriations for EPA over the

past decade are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. EPA Requested and Enacted Appropriations

FY2005-FY2017

authorization of appropriations is a procedural requirement.

Congress may appropriate funding for a program or activity

for which the authorization of appropriations has expired if

no Member raises a point of order or the rules are waived

for consideration of a particular bill. Congress has typically

done so to continue appropriations for EPA.

EPA Appropriations Accounts

From FY1996 to FY2013, EPA’s funding had been

requested by the Administration and appropriated by

Congress under eight statutory accounts: State and Tribal

Assistance Grants (STAG), Environmental Programs and

Management (EPM), Hazardous Substance Superfund

(“Superfund”), Science and Technology (S&T), Leaking

Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund, Buildings

and Facilities (B&F), Office of Inspector General (OIG),

and Inland Oil Spill Program. A ninth account, Hazardous

Waste Electronic Manifest System Fund, was added during

the FY2014 budget process.

Figure 2. EPA Appropriations by Account FY2008FY2017

Source: Prepared by CRS using information from the Congressional

Record; House, Senate, and conference committee reports; and EPA’s

FY2017 Congressional Budget Justification. Enacted amounts reflect

rescissions and supplemental appropriations, including $7.22 billion

included for EPA in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of

2009 (P.L. 111-5).

Funding is appropriated to EPA to support the agency’s

primary responsibilities under several federal

environmental statutes in coordination with delegated

states. These statutes authorize the regulation of air quality,

water quality, pesticides, and toxic substances; regulation of

the management and disposal of solid and hazardous

wastes; and the remediation of environmental

contamination (including releases of hazardous substances,

leaks of petroleum from underground tanks, and discharges

of oil). EPA also awards grants to assist delegated states

and local governments in ensuring compliance with federal

requirements to control pollution.

Authorization of Appropriations

The statutory authorization of appropriations for many of

the programs and activities administered by EPA has

expired, but Congress has continued to fund them through

the appropriations process. The need for a current

Source: Prepared by CRS using information from the Congressional

Record; House, Senate, and conference committee reports; and EPA’s

FY2017 Congressional Budget Justification. Enacted amounts include

rescissions and supplemental appropriations.

As indicated in Figure 2, the proportional distribution of

funding among the EPA appropriations accounts has

remained relatively constant in recent fiscal years. The

STAG and EPM accounts have been the largest share of

funding followed by the Superfund and S&T accounts. The

STAG account funds grants for water infrastructure, the

assessment and remediation of brownfields, diesel emission

reduction, and various “categorical” grants to states and

tribes for pollution control activities. The EPM account

funds many cross-cutting agency activities, the S&T

https://crsreports.congress.gov

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): FY2017 President’s Budget Request

account funds the bulk of the research and scientific support

activities, and the Superfund account supports the

assessment and remediation of contaminated sites

administered under EPA’s Superfund program.

Rescissions of Unobligated Balances

Beginning with EPA’s FY2006 appropriations, Congress

has “rescinded” unobligated balances from funds

appropriated in prior years in the various EPA

appropriations accounts and made them available for

expenditure in the current fiscal year. In effect, these

“rescissions” increase the availability of funds for the

agency in the years in which they are applied, functioning

as an offset to new appropriations by Congress.

Rescissions of unobligated balances for EPA have been

included in annual appropriations acts from FY2006

through FY2016, with the exception of FY2014. P.L. 114113 included a rescission of $40 million from unobligated

balances for FY2016, the same as enacted for FY2015. In

other fiscal years, rescissions have ranged from $10 million

to a high of $140 million in FY2011.

The President’s annual budget request does not typically

propose the rescission of unobligated balances, but there

were exceptions. For example, the President’s FY2015

request proposed a $5.0 million rescission. Neither the

FY2016 nor the FY2017 request included proposals to

rescind unobligated balances of EPA.

EPA Staff Levels

Figure 3 presents EPA’s “full-time-equivalent” (FTE)

staffing ceiling as enacted for FY2002 through FY2016 and

the FY2017 request.

Figure 3. EPA’s Reported Authorized Full Time

Equivalent (FTE) Employment Ceiling, FY2002FY2016 and FY2017 Requested

Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)

18,000

15,416

15,000

12,000

9,000

6,000

3,000

0

Source: Prepared by CRS using information from EPA’s FY2017 EPA

Budget in Brief, Overview, p. 11.

Notes: FTE is defined as one employee working full time for a full

year (52 weeks x 40 hours = 2,080 hours) or the equivalent hours

worked by several part-time or temporary employees.

FY2015 enacted level of 15,335 FTEs was the lowest since

FY1989. Although Congress does not explicitly appropriate

funding to EPA on the basis of its specific staffing levels, in

its Congressional Justification, EPA presents information

regarding total FTEs and FTE levels by each of the

appropriations accounts that fund the programs and

activities of the agency.

Funding and Related Policy Issues

The debate and hearings so far on EPA’s appropriations for

FY2017 have focused on federal financial assistance to

states for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure

projects through capitalization grants for State Revolving

Funds, various categorical grants to support the

implementation and enforcement of federal environmental

statutes delegated to the states, funding for the agency’s

implementation and research support for air pollution

control requirements, EPA actions to address climate

change and greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, and funding

for environmental remediation. Funding levels for several

geographic-specific initiatives, including the Great Lakes

Restoration Initiative and efforts to restore the Chesapeake

Bay, have also garnered congressional interest.

In addition to funding levels, several recent and pending

EPA regulatory actions—most notably those that address

GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act and the definition

of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water

Act—have again been among the areas of debate during the

deliberations on EPA’s budget request.

Some Members continue to view these regulatory actions as

costly and “overreach” by the agency. Other Members have

countered that EPA’s actions are consistent with statutory

mandates and in some circumstances are compelled by

court rulings—and that costs and benefits are appropriately

weighed. Some Members have also noted that certain EPA

regulations could be stricter, as scientific understanding of

risks has evolved. Authorizing committees continue to

debate many of these actions through hearings and

legislation during the 114th Congress.

Various appropriations acts for prior fiscal years have

restricted or prohibited the use of enacted appropriations by

EPA to develop, propose, finalize, or implement certain

regulations that a majority consensus of Congress opposed.

These funding limitations have been included in the form of

administrative and general provisions in annual

appropriations acts rather than the accounts that fund these

activities. Interest in some of these EPA regulatory actions

has been recurring in recent years, as some of the funding

limitations have been renewed from year to year in annual

appropriations acts.

Robert Esworthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy

David M. Bearden, Specialist in Environmental Policy

IF10383

The President’s FY2017 budget request proposed 15,416

FTEs for EPA to administer federal environmental statutes

in coordination with delegated states. EPA reported that the

https://crsreports.congress.gov

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): FY2017 President’s Budget Request

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to

congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.

Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has

been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the

United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be

reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include

copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you

wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10383 · VERSION 2 · NEW