Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Congressional research reportJun 30, 2011
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
Appropriations for FY2011
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
June 30, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R41149
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Summary
Enacted April 15, 2011, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act,
2011 (P.L. 112-10, H.R. 1473), provided funding for the remainder of FY2011 for those agencies
typically funded under 12 regular appropriations bills. Including applicable rescissions, Title VII
of Division B under P.L. 112-10 provided $8.68 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA ) for FY2011. The final EPA FY2011 appropriations were $1.61 billion (16%) less than the
FY2010 appropriation of $10.29 billion, and $1.34 billion (13%) less than the $10.02 billion
included in the President’s FY2011 budget request.
The overall decrease for EPA for FY2011, including rescissions, compared to the FY2010 enacted
appropriations and FY2011 President’s request was reflected in reductions across the eight EPA
regular appropriations accounts. Most of the overall FY2011 decrease resulted from a reduction
in EPA’s State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account for grants to aid states to capitalize
their Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). The FY2011 combined
total for the Clean Water and the Drinking Water SRFs was $2.49 billion, compared to $3.49
billion for FY2010 and the President’s FY2011 budget request of $3.29 billion.
None of the 12 regular appropriations bills for FY2011, including the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies bill that funds EPA, were enacted before the start of the fiscal year on October
1, 2010. Initially, a series of temporary continuing resolutions (CRs) was enacted that sequentially
extended funding from October 1, 2010, through April 15, 2011 (the last of the FY2011 interim
CRs was P.L. 112-8, enacted April 9, 2011). Also during the 112th Congress, Title VII of Division
B in H.R. 1, a full-year continuing resolution passed by the House on February 19, 2011, included
specified funding levels for certain EPA accounts below the FY2011 requested and FY2010
enacted levels. House-passed H.R. 1 contained more than 20 provisions that would have restricted
and prohibited the use of appropriated funds to implement various regulatory activities under
EPA’s jurisdiction. On March 9, 2011, the Senate did not pass the House version of H.R. 1 and
did not agree to a subsequent Senate substitute amendment (S.Amdt. 149) containing different
funding levels and omitting the EPA provisions included in the House-passed H.R. 1.
In addition to the Clean Water and the Drinking Water SRFs, other prominent issues that received
attention within the context of the EPA FY2011 appropriations debate included the level of
funding for greenhouse gas emission regulations, climate change research and related activities,
cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the Superfund program, cleanup of less hazardous sites
referred to as brownfields, and grants to assist states in implementing certain air pollution control
requirements. Funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative established in the FY2010
appropriations, and funding for the protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and other
geographic-specific water programs, also received attention.
Congressional Research Service
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
EPA Appropriations and Budget Process......................................................................................... 2
EPA’s FY2011 Appropriations by Account...................................................................................... 4
Congressional Priorities (Earmarks) ................................................................................................ 6
Key Funding Issues.......................................................................................................................... 7
Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure ......................................................................... 8
Infrastructure Grants/Congressional Priorities (Earmarks) ................................................. 9
Cleanup of Superfund Sites ..................................................................................................... 10
Cleanup Progress............................................................................................................... 12
Superfund Taxes................................................................................................................ 12
Brownfields ............................................................................................................................. 13
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Program ........................................................... 14
Air Quality............................................................................................................................... 16
Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Reduction .................................................................... 18
Geographic-Specific/Ecosystem Programs ............................................................................. 22
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative..................................................................................... 23
Chesapeake Bay and Mississippi River Basin .................................................................. 24
Figures
Figure 1. EPA FY2011 Enacted Appropriations in Division B Title VII of P.L. 112-10 by
Account (Before Transfers Between Accounts)............................................................................ 6
Figure B-1. EPA Discretionary Budget Authority, FY1976-FY2010, and FY2011
President’s Request: Adjusted and Not Adjusted for Inflation ................................................... 30
Tables
Table 1. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency: FY2011 and FY2010
Enacted, and the President’s FY2011 Budget Request................................................................. 5
Table 2. Appropriations for Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)
Capitalization Grants: FY2011 and FY2010 Enacted, and President’s FY2011 Request ............ 9
Table 3. Appropriations for the Hazardous Substance Superfund Account: FY2011 and
FY2010 Enacted, and the President’s FY2011 Request ............................................................. 11
Table 4. Appropriations for EPA’s Brownfields Program: FY2011 and FY2010 Enacted,
and the President’s FY2011 Budget Request.............................................................................. 14
Table 5. Appropriations for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program
Account: FY2011 and FY2010 Enacted, and the FY2011 President’s Budget Request............. 15
Table 6. Appropriations for Selected EPA Air Quality Research and Implementation
Activities by Account: FY2011and FY2010 Enacted, and the President’s FY2011
Budget Request........................................................................................................................... 17
Congressional Research Service
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Table 7. Appropriations for EPA Climate Change Protection and Research: FY2011 and
FY2010 Enacted, and the President’s FY2011 Budget Request................................................. 21
Table 8. Appropriations for Selected Geographic-Specific/Ecosystem Programs: FY2011
and FY2010 Enacted, and the President’s FY2011 Budget Request .......................................... 23
Table A-1. EPA’s Eight Appropriations Accounts.......................................................................... 25
Table B-1. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency:
FY2007-FY2011 Enacted ........................................................................................................... 28
Appendixes
Appendix A. Descriptions of EPA’s Eight Appropriations Accounts............................................. 25
Appendix B. Historical Funding Trends ........................................................................................ 27
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 30
Congressional Research Service
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Introduction
EPA was established in 1970 to consolidate federal pollution control responsibilities that had been
divided among several federal agencies. EPA’s responsibilities grew significantly as Congress
enacted an increasing number of environmental laws as well as major amendments to these
statutes. Among the agency’s primary responsibilities are the regulation of air quality, water
quality, pesticides, and toxic substances; the management and disposal of solid and hazardous
wastes; and the cleanup of environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants to assist states
and local governments in complying with federal requirements to control pollution.
On April 15, 2011, the President signed the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10, H.R. 1473). Division B of P.L. 112-10 provided funding
for the remainder of FY2011 for those agencies typically funded under 11 of the 12 regular
appropriations bills,1 including the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies bills which has
provided funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since FY2006. Title VII of
Division B under P.L. 112-10 provided $8.68 billion for EPA for FY2011, including an across-the
board rescission of 0.2%,2 and a $140.0 million rescission of unobligated balances.3 The final
EPA FY2011 appropriations was $1.61 billion (16%) less than the FY2010 appropriation of
$10.29 billion, and $1.34 billion (13%) less than the $10.02 billion included in the President’s
FY2011 budget request submitted to Congress on February 1, 2010.
Congress and the President did not complete action on any of the 12 regular appropriations bills
for FY2011 prior to the end of FY2010. Beginning October 1, 2010 (the start of FY2011), EPA
and other federal departments and agencies were funded under a series of seven interim CRs,
generally at or below FY2010 funding levels.4 Although no stand-alone bill to fund the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2011 was introduced, House and Senate
appropriations committees5 and various authorizing committees held hearings in the 111th
Congress to consider the President’s FY2011 budget request for EPA, and Congress continued to
debate a variety of EPA funding and policy issues during consideration of the FY2011 Interior
appropriations6 through the end of the end 111th Congress and the beginning of the 112th.
1
The Department of Defense regular appropriations bill, including separate amounts for each account, was included in
Division A of P.L. 112-10.
2
P.L. 112-10, Section 1119, Title I, Div. B.
3
P.L. 112-10, Section 1740, Title VII, Div. B, “Of the unobligated balances available for “Environmental Protection
Agency, State and Tribal Assistance Grants”, $140,000,000 is rescinded....”
4
Prior to the enactment of P.L. 112-10 on April 15, 2011, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 111-242),
continued funding generally at FY2010 levels through December 3, 2010. A second continuing resolution (P.L. 111290) extended funding through December 18, 2010; a third (P.L. 111-317) extended funding through December 21,
2010; a fourth (P.L. 111-322) extended funding through March 4, 2011; a fifth, the Further Continuing Appropriations
Amendments, 2011 (P.L. 112-4), extended funding through March 18, 2011; a sixth, the Additional Continuing
Appropriations Amendments, 2011 (P.L. 112-6), extended funding through April 8, 2011; and a seventh, the Further
Additional Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011 (P.L. 112-8 ), continued funding through April 15, 2011. For
more detailed discussion and information on the history, nature, scope, and duration of continuing resolutions, see CRS
Report RL30343, Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of Recent Practices, by (name redacted).
5
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies held a hearing on the
FY2011 budget for EPA on February 24, 2010; the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies held a hearing on the FY2011 budget for EPA on March 3, 2010.
6
For an overview of FY2011 Interior appropriations, including analysis of key funding issues for the major agencies
under these appropriations, see CRS Report R41258, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Early during the first session of the 112th Congress, the House passed H.R. 1, the Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, on February 19, 2011. As amended and passed, Division B
of H.R. 1 would have provided adjusted funding levels through the end of FY2011 for 11 of the
12 regular appropriations bills,7 including the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill which funds EPA. Additionally, House-passed H.R. 1 included more than 20
provisions that would have restricted and prohibited the use of appropriated funds to implement
various regulatory activities under EPA’s jurisdiction.8 On March 9, 2011, the Senate did not pass
the House-passed version of H.R. 1 and did not agree to a subsequent substitute amendment to the
bill (S.Amdt. 149) that omitted the House-passed provisions related to EPA regulatory activities.9
Two other bills enacted during the second session of the 111th Congress included provisions
related to EPA appropriations. Title II of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111212, H.R. 4899) enacted July 29, 2010,10 provided $2.0 million in supplemental funding for EPA
within the Science and Technology (S&T) appropriations account for research of the potential
long-term human health and environmental risks and impacts from the releases of crude oil, and
the application of chemical dispersants, washing agents, and other measures11 to mitigate these
releases. Sections 311-313 of Title III of P.L. 111-226,12 as enacted August 10, 2010, rescinded
FY2009 funds made available to EPA under Title VII of Division A of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5): $2.6 million from Hazardous Substance
Superfund; $9.2 million from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program; and
$10.0 million from Environmental Programs and Management.
EPA Appropriations and Budget Process
Since FY2006, Congress has funded EPA programs and activities within the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.13 Within the framework of an annual
(...continued)
Appropriations, coordinated by (name redacted).
7
The Department of Defense regular appropriations bill, including separate amounts for each account, was included in
Division A of H.R. 1.
8
For an overview of funding levels and provisions contained in House-passed H.R. 1 and S.Amdt. 149, and a
comparison with the FY2011 requested and FY2010 enacted funding levels, see CRS Report R41698, H.R. 1 Full-Year
FY2011 Continuing Resolution: Overview of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Provisions, by (name redacted).
9
Pursuant to the March 8, 2011, order preceding the vote, H.R. 1 was returned to the Senate Calendar, Senate
Congressional Record S1362, March 8, 2011.
10
Title II of P.L. 111-212 (H.R. 4899) provided supplemental FY2010 appropriations for oil spill response and
recovery efforts in the Gulf of Mexico associated with the Deepwater Horizon incident; see CRS Report R41232,
FY2010 Supplemental for Wars, Disaster Assistance, Haiti Relief, and Other Programs, coordinated by (name redacted).
11
P.L. 111-212 stipulated mitigation measures as those listed in the National Contingency Plan Product List, and
directed EPA to use the $2.0 million in supplemental funding to carry out this research in coordination with the
Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce; see 40 C.F.R. Part 300 Subpart J.
12
P.L. 111-226, as enacted August 10, 2010, authorized and appropriated funding for education jobs and Medicaid. As
offsets, Title III of P.L. 111-226 included rescissions of prior-year appropriated amounts from several specified federal
agencies, programs, and accounts, including EPA accounts.
13
During the 109th Congress, EPA’s funding was moved from the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations
Subcommittees on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies to the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittees beginning with the FY2006 appropriations. This
change resulted from the abolition of the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Veterans Affairs,
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies.
Congressional Research Service
2
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
congressional budget resolution, the Natural Resources and Environment Function (Budget
Function 300) outlines funding for several federal land management agencies and EPA. The
budget resolution sets forth total levels of spending and revenues for at least five fiscal years, and
basically sets a cap on discretionary spending provided in the annual appropriations bills for the
upcoming fiscal year. The programmatic assumptions underlying such totals, such as how much
Congress intends to provide for EPA and other related agencies for the upcoming fiscal year,
however, are not binding. Rather, funding levels for individual agencies and their programs and
activities are set through the appropriations process.14 Congress did not complete action on a
budget resolution for FY2011.15
EPA’s funding over the long-term generally has reflected an increase in overall appropriations to
fulfill a rising number of statutory responsibilities to carry out the agency’s primary mission of
protecting human health and the environment. Without adjusting for inflation, appropriations
enacted for EPA have risen from about $1.0 billion when the agency was established in FY1970
to a peak level of $14.86 billion in FY2009. This peak funding level included both the $7.64
billion in “regular” fiscal year appropriations provided in the Omnibus Appropriations Act for
FY2009 (P.L. 111-8), and the $7.22 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations provided in
the ARRA of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). Appendix B provides a five-year funding history by EPA
appropriations account and Figure B-1 depicts historical funding trends for the agency based on
information readily available from OMB back to FY1976.
In general, the term appropriations used in this report refers to total discretionary funds made
available to EPA for obligation, including regular fiscal year and emergency supplemental
appropriations, as well as any rescissions, transfers, and deferrals in a particular fiscal year, but
excludes permanent or mandatory appropriations that are not subject to the annual appropriations
process. This latter category of funding constitutes a very small portion of EPA’s funding. The
vast majority of the agency’s funding consists of discretionary appropriations. Since FY1996,
EPA’s appropriations have been requested by the Administration and appropriated by Congress
within eight statutory appropriations accounts.16 Appendix A briefly describes the scope and
purpose of the activities funded within each of EPA’s eight statutory appropriations accounts.
FY2011 enacted appropriations amounts as presented in this report are based on information
provided by the House Appropriations Committee reflecting the across-the-board 0.2% rescission
included in P.L. 112-10.17 The amounts presented for the President’s FY2011 budget request are
as reported in EPA’s FY2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification (referred
to throughout this report as the EPA FY2011 budget justification),18 and the President’s Budget of
the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011, issued by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).19 FY2010 appropriations are as reported in the conference report (H.Rept. 111-316)
14
For a brief over of the congressional budget process, see CRS Report RS20095, The Congressional Budget Process:
A Brief Overview, by (name redacted).
15
For information on the FY2011 budget resolution and related issues, see CRS Report R41097, The FY2011 Federal
Budget, by (name redacted), and CRS Report R41685,The Federal Budget: Issues for FY2011, FY2012, and Beyond,
by (name redacted).
16
Prior to FY1996, Congress appropriated funding for EPA under a different account structure, making it difficult to
equitably compare past funding levels by account over the history of the agency.
17
Section 1119, Title I, Div. B.
18
EPA’s FY2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, and other related agency budget
documents are available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget.
19
The multi-volume set of the President’s Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011, is available at
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
accompanying the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2010
(P.L. 111-88; H.R. 2996).
Funding increases and decreases noted in this report generally are calculated based on
comparisons between the enacted FY2011 appropriations, the FY2010 appropriations provided in
P.L. 111-88 (and any supplemental appropriations or other adjustments; see discussion under
“Congressional Action on FY2011 Appropriations,” which follows), and funding levels requested
by the President for FY2011. This report also includes information on funding levels enacted for
FY2009 for certain EPA programs and activities, including both the regular fiscal year
appropriations provided in P.L. 111-8 and the emergency supplemental appropriations provided in
P.L. 111-5, the latter of which is referred to throughout this report as ARRA or Recovery Act
funding. Comparisons with the funding levels proposed in House-passed H.R. 1 and S.Amdt. 149
are not included in this report but are presented in see CRS Report R41698, H.R. 1 Full-Year
FY2011 Continuing Resolution: Overview of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Provisions,
by (name redacted).
With the exception of the historical funding presented in Figure B-1 in Appendix B, the enacted
appropriations for prior fiscal years presented throughout this report have not been adjusted for
inflation. In some cases, small increases above the prior-year funding level may reflect a decrease
in real dollar values when adjusted for inflation.
The following sections of this report provide a brief overview of the FY2011 appropriations, and
examination of funding levels and relevant issues for selected EPA programs and activities that
have received more prominent attention. Appropriations are complex, and accordingly not all
issues are summarized in this report. OMB’s budget documentation and EPA’s budget justification
number more than 1,000 pages and present an array of funding, programmatic, and legislative
proposals for congressional consideration. Further, the appropriations bills and accompanying
committee reports identify funding levels for numerous programs, activities, and sub-activities
that are beyond the scope of this report, and the committee reports may provide specific direction
to the agency in terms of how the funds are to be spent to implement a certain activity. There was
no committee report accompanying P.L. 112-10.
EPA’s FY2011 Appropriations by Account
Table 1 presents a comparison of EPA’s FY2011 enacted appropriations included in P.L. 112-10
with the FY2011 President’s budget request, and FY2010 enacted amounts by each of the
Agency’s eight accounts (see detailed descriptions of the appropriations accounts in Appendix
A). Figure 1 following the Table presents the percentage allocation of the total FY2011
appropriations for EPA among the agency’s eight appropriations accounts. The FY2011 enacted
amounts in the table reflect the 0.2% across the board rescission included in P.L. 112-10,20
FY2010 enacted levels include $2.0 million in supplemental appropriations are provided under
P.L. 111-212 within the Science and Technology account as noted earlier.
(...continued)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/.
20
Section 1119, Title I, Div. B.
Congressional Research Service
4
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Table 1. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency:
FY2011 and FY2010 Enacted, and the President’s FY2011 Budget Request
(millions of dollars)
EPA Appropriation Accounts
FY2010
Enacted
P.L. 111-88a
FY2011
Request
FY2011
Enacted
P.L. 112-10
Science and Technology
—Base Appropriations
$848.1
$846.7
$813.5
—Transfer in from Superfund
+$26.8
+$24.5
+$26.8
Science and Technology Total
$874.9
$871.2
$840.3
$2,993.8
$2,891.0
$2,756.5
—Base Appropriations
$44.8
$45.6
$44.7
—Transfer in from Superfund
+$10.0
+$10.2
+$10.0
Office of Inspector General Total
$54.8
$55.8
$54.8
Buildings & Facilities
$37.0
$40.0
$36.4
Hazardous Substance Superfund (before transfers)
$1,306.5
$1,293.1
$1,280.9
—Transfer out to Office of Inspector General
-$10.0
-$10.2
-$10.0
—Transfer out to Science and Technology
-$26.8
-$24.5
-$26.8
$1,269.7
$1,258.4
$1,244.2
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program
$113.1
$113.2
$112.9
Oil Spill Response
$18.4
$18.5
$18.3
—Clean Water State Revolving Fund
$2,100.0
$2,000.0
$1,522.0
—Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
$1,387.0
$1,287.0
$963.1
—Special Project Grants
$156.8
$0.0
$0.0
—Categorical Grants
$1,116.4
$1,276.6
$1,104.2
—Brownfields Section 104(k) Grants
$100.0
$138.3
$99.8
—Diesel Emission Reduction Grants
$60.0
$60.0
$49.9
—Other State and Tribal Assistance Grants
$50.0
$20.0
$19.9
$4,970.2
$4,781.9
$3,758.9
-$40.0
-$10.0
-$140.0
$10,291.9
$10,020.0
$8,682.1
Environmental Programs and Management
Office of Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund (after transfers)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Total
Rescissions of Unobligated Balancesb
Total EPA Accounts
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service: FY2010 enacted appropriations are from the conference
report to accompany the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2010 (H.R. 2996,
H.Rept. 111-316, pp. 240–244). The President’s FY2011 requested amounts are from EPA’s FY2011 Annual Performance
Plan and Congressional Justification, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget, FY2011 enacted amounts are as presented in
information provided to CRS by the House Committee on Appropriations which reflects the across-the-board 0.2%
rescission included in P.L. 112-10.
a.
The amounts presented for the base appropriations for the S&T account and the EPA total include $2.0
million in supplemental appropriations for research of the potential long-term human health and
Congressional Research Service
5
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
environmental risks and impacts from the releases of crude oil, and the application of chemical dispersants
and other mitigation measures under P.L. 111-212, Title II.
b.
The FY2010 enacted and FY2011 requested rescissions were from unobligated balances from funds
appropriated in prior years across the eight accounts, and made available for expenditure in a later year. In
effect, these “rescissions” increase the availability of funds for expenditure by the agency in the years in
which they are applied, functioning as an offset to new appropriations by Congress. With regard to the
FY2011 enacted rescissions, Sec. 1740 in Title IV of Div. B under P.L. 112-10 refers only to “unobligated
balances available for “Environmental Protection Agency, State and Tribal Assistance Grants”[not across all
accounts], and does not specify that these funds are to be rescinded from prior years. The EPA
Administrator was to submit a proposed allocation of such rescinded amounts to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and the Senate.
Figure 1. EPA FY2011 Enacted Appropriations in
Division B Title VII of P.L. 112-10 by Account
(Before Transfers Between Accounts)
Total FY2011 Appropriation = $8.68 billion
0.4%
Building &
Facilities
$36.4 million
14.8%
Hazardous
Substance
Superfund
$1.28 billion
1.3%
Leaking
Underground
Storage Tank
Program
$112.9 million
43.3%
State & Tribal
Assistance Grants
(STAG)
$3.76 billion
31.7%
Environmental
Programs &
Management
$2.76 billion
0.5%
Inspector General
$44.7 million
0.2%
Oil Spill Response
$18.3 million
9.4%
Science &
Technology
$813.5 million
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from the House Committee on
Appropriations. Amounts reflect the across-the-board 0.2% rescission included in P.L. 112-10. Numbers may not
add due to rounding.
Congressional Priorities (Earmarks)
P.L. 112-10 did not include funding for individual projects, locations, or institutions (often
referred to as “earmarked funding”) that Congress designated within appropriations for FY2010,
Congressional Research Service
6
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
including those for EPA.21 While there is no consensus on a single earmark definition among all
practitioners and observers of the appropriations process, the Senate and House both in 2007
adopted a definition for purposes of implementing new earmark transparency requirements in
their respective chambers.22 In the House rule, such a funding item is referred to as a
congressional earmark (or earmark), while, in the Senate rule, it is referred to as a
congressionally directed spending item (or spending item).23 Leadership in both chambers has
indicated that they would adhere to an earmark moratorium during the 112th Congress,24 generally
precluding earmarks in the appropriations bills for FY2011 and FY2012.
In contrast, in the FY2010 appropriations (P.L. 111-88), Congress provided $179.4 million in
such designated funding for EPA, and $167.9 million in FY2009.25
Key Funding Issues
Much of the attention on EPA’s appropriations for FY2011 focused on federal financial assistance
for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects,26 environmental cleanup, grants to
assist states in implementing air pollution control requirements, and climate change research and
related activities. There also was interest in funding for several geographic-specific initiatives,
including the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative introduced in the FY2010 Interior Appropriations
(P.L. 111-88), efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay, and for the Mississippi River Basin.
Several recent and pending EPA regulatory actions27 also were the focus of considerable attention
during committee hearings and floor debate on EPA FY2011 appropriations, and were reflected in
several provisions and amendments included in House-passed H.R. 1.28 Although not retained in
P.L. 112-10, more than 20 provisions that would have restricted and prohibited the use of
appropriated funds to implement various regulatory activities under EPA’s jurisdiction were
21
The President’s FY2011 request also did not include prior year earmarked funding, consistent with past
administrations’ budget requests, which typically do not reflect such congressional priorities.
22
See Senate Rule XLIV and House Rule XXI, clause 9. CRS Report RL34462, House and Senate Procedural Rules
Concerning Earmark Disclosure, by (name redacted), describes and compares the procedures and requirements in House
and Senate rules. See also CRS Report RS22866, Earmark Disclosure Rules in the House: Member and Committee
Requirements, by Megan Suzanne Lynch, and CRS Report RS22867, Earmark Disclosure Rules in the Senate: Member
and Committee Requirements, by Megan Suzanne Lynch.
23
In both cases, this refers to “a provision [in a measure or conference report] or report language included primarily at
the request of a [Representative or] Senator providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of
discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant,
loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific state, locality or Congressional district,
other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.” Senate Rule XLIV and
House Rule XXI, clause 9.
24
Rules of the House Republican Conference for the 112th Congress, Standing Orders, December 8, 2010, p. 43,
http://www.gop.gov/about/rules?standing-orders-for-the-112th; Senate Committee on Appropriations, Committee
Announces Earmark Moratorium, February 1, 2011 Press Release, http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=
news.view&id=188dc791-4b0d-459e-b8d9-4ede5ca299e7.
25
For discussion of congressionally designated funding in FY2010, see CRS Report R40685, Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations, coordinated by (name redacted)
26
See CRS Report 96-647, Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations, by (name redacted).
27
For a discussion of EPA selected regulatory actions, see CRS Report R41561, EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too
Little, or On Track?, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
28
House Congressional Record beginning H830, February 15, 2011, ending H1355, February 19, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
7
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
included in House-passed H.R. 1.29 These regulatory actions cut across a range of EPA programs
and initiatives under the various environmental pollution control statutes, such as those that
address greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous air pollutants (including mercury), environmental
impacts of mountaintop mining, management of coal ash, particulate matter emissions, and water
quality management including geographical ecosystems (e.g., Chesapeake Bay). Title VII of
Division B in the Senate substitute amendment (S.Amdt. 149), which would have provided
FY2011 funding levels for EPA different from those in the House-passed bill, also omitted the
House provisions related to EPA regulatory activities.
The following sections discuss prominent funding issues of debate, including comparisons of the
FY2011 enacted appropriations with FY2010 enacted appropriations and the President’s FY2011
Budget Request.
Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure30
Most of the overall FY2011 decrease relative to the FY2010 appropriations for EPA resulted from
a reduction in EPA’s State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account for grants to aid states to
capitalize their Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). The combined
total for the Clean Water and the Drinking Water SRFs included in P.L. 112-10 for FY2011 was
$2.49 billion, compared to $3.49 billion for FY2010 and the President’s request of $3.29 billion.
These monies constitute the majority of EPA grant funds within the STAG account, but numerous
other grants also are funded within this account.31 The SRF funding specifically supports local
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, such as construction of and modifications
to municipal sewage treatment plants and drinking water treatment plants, to facilitate compliance
with the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, respectively.32
P.L. 112-10 provided $1.52 billion for the Clean Water SRF capitalization grants and $963.1
million for the Drinking Water SRF capitalization grants. As shown in Table 2, these FY2011
appropriations were below the FY2010 enacted appropriations.33 Some Members objected to the
reductions, while others maintained that the reductions were offset by unspent FY2009
supplemental funding provided under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (P.L.
111-5). The FY2011 appropriations for these grants were larger than the regular appropriations
29
For an overview of funding levels and provisions contained in House-passed H.R. 1 and S.Amdt. 149, and a
comparison with the FY2011 requested and FY2010 enacted funding levels, see CRS Report R41698, H.R. 1 Full-Year
FY2011 Continuing Resolution: Overview of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Provisions, by (name redacted).
30
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialis t in Resources and Environmental Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
31
The STAG account also includes funds to support state and tribal “categorical” grant programs. States and tribes use
these grants to support the day-to-day implementation of environmental laws, such as monitoring, permitting and
standard setting, training, and other pollution control and prevention activities. Categorical grants also assist
multimedia projects such as pollution prevention incentive grants, and pesticides and toxic substances enforcement.
P.L. 112-10 provided $1.11 billion for these grants for FY2011, below the FY2010 appropriation of $1.12 billion and
President’s FY2011 budget request of $1.28 billion.
32
See CRS Report 96-647, Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations, by (name redacted), and
CRS Report RS22037, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF): Program Overview and Issues, by (name
redacted).
33
The FY2011 enacted level for both SRFs was larger than the level provided in recent past fiscal years. By
comparison, the average annual total funding for the two SRF programs during the 12-year period prior to FY2009 was
$2.0 billion.
Congressional Research Service
8
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
for FY2009 in P.L. 111-8, but much smaller than total FY2009 appropriations when including the
additional $4.0 billion for the Clean Water SRF capitalization grants and $2.0 billion for the
Drinking Water SRF capitalization grants in P.L. 111-5 (see Table B-1 in Appendix B).
The extent of federal assistance still needed to help states maintain sufficient capital in their SRFs
to finance projects has been an ongoing issue. Some have cited estimates of hundreds of billions
of dollars in long-term needs among communities, and the tightening of federal water quality
requirements over time, as reasons for maintaining or increasing the level of federal assistance.
Table 2. Appropriations for Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(SRF) Capitalization Grants: FY2011 and FY2010 Enacted,
and President’s FY2011 Request
(millions of dollars)
SRF
FY2010
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
FY2011
Request
FY2011
Enacted
P.L. 112-10
Clean Water
$2,100.0
$2,000.0
$1,522.0
Drinking Water
$1,387.0
$1,287.0
$963.1
Total SRF Appropriations
$3,487.0
$3,287.0
$2,485.1
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2010 Enacted appropriations are from the conference
report to accompany the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2010 (H.R. 2996,
H.Rept. 111-316, pp. 243–244). The President’s FY2011 requested amounts are from EPA’s FY2011 Annual
Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget, FY2011 enacted amounts are as
presented in information provided by the House Committee on Appropriations which reflects the across-the-board
0.2% rescission included in P.L. 112-10. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
The adequacy of federal funding levels for both SRFs has been contentious. Capital needs for
water infrastructure, as demonstrated in EPA-state surveys, remain high. For the Clean Water
SRF, prior to FY2010, Congress had appropriated significantly more funding than the
Administration requested. There has been less disagreement between Congress and the
Administration about the appropriate funding level for the Drinking Water SRF. Some Members
advocated substantial increases for both SRFs in response to local water infrastructure needs
generally, and more specifically, to help communities comply with new water quality
requirements and new standards for drinking water contaminants (e.g., arsenic and radium).
Others contended that the reductions were in keeping with the need to address the overall federal
deficit and federal spending concerns.
Infrastructure Grants/Congressional Priorities (Earmarks)
Although the SRF grants represent the bulk of EPA funding for water infrastructure, Congress
also has supported these needs through congressionally directed funding for “special project
grants” (“earmarks”) in the STAG account. The FY2010 Interior, Environment appropriations
included $156.8 million for 317 special project grants distributed to individual communities
across the United States.34 The President’s FY2011 budget did not include funding for
congressionally directed special projects, which is consistent with past administrations’ budgets.
34
H.Rept. 111-316 on H.R. 2996, pp. 118–127.
Congressional Research Service
9
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
While the FY2011 enacted appropriations (and the President’s FY2011 budget request) did not
include funds for congressionally designated special projects, funding was included for water
infrastructure grants in two geographic-specific areas that reflect Administration priorities were
included for FY2011:
•
$9.98 million for the construction of wastewater and drinking water facilities in
Alaska Native Villages, compared to $10.0 million in the FY2011 request, and
$13.0 million for FY2010; and
•
$9.98 million for wastewater infrastructure projects along the U.S./Mexico
border, compared to $10.0 million in the FY2011 request, and $17.0 million for
FY2010.
Cleanup of Superfund Sites35
The Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) account supports the assessment and cleanup of
contaminated sites administered under EPA’s Superfund program, established under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).36
P.L. 112-10 provided $1.28 billion for the Superfund account for FY2011 (prior to transfers to
other EPA accounts). The FY2011 appropriation was $25.6 million less than the enacted FY2010
appropriation of $1.31 billion, and $12.2 million les than the President’s FY2011 request of $1.29
billion. Funding levels for the Superfund account have remained fairly similar to these amounts
over the past decade (not accounting for inflation).37 Although there had been concern among
some states and communities that budgetary constraints could have jeopardized the availability of
funding for ongoing cleanup activities at many sites, the FY2011 enacted amounts within the
Superfund account that fund physical site cleanup activities were similar to the President’s
request. The reductions for the overall account were mainly attributed to enforcement and other
supporting activities.
As amended, CERCLA established EPA’s Superfund program to clean up the nation’s most
threatening sites and to enforce the liability of parties who are responsible for the cleanup costs
under the statute.38 If the parties cannot be found or cannot pay, the Superfund program may pay
for the cleanup of a site under a cost-share agreement with the state in which the site is located.
Sites at which there are no viable parties to assume responsibility for the cleanup are referred to
as “orphan” sites. EPA’s Hazardous Substance Superfund account funds the cleanup of
contaminated sites under the Superfund program, except for the cleanup of the federal
government’s own facilities, which are funded directly by the agencies that administer them.
35
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialis t in Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
36
42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.
37
FY2009 was an exception to this trend with $600.0 million in supplemental funds provided in ARRA (P.L. 111-5).
38
For more information on EPA’s cleanup and enforcement authorities under CERCLA, see CRS Report R41039,
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund Cleanup
Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
10
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Most of the funding within the Superfund account is allocated to the cleanup of sites that EPA has
placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).39 Funding for “remedial” and “removal” actions
pays for the physical cleanup of contamination.40 The remainder is used for enforcement against
the responsible parties, oversight of the cleanup of federal facilities by other agencies, research of
cleanup methods, EPA’s operational expenses, and other support activities. Funding is transferred
from the Superfund account to EPA’s Science and Technology account to carry out the agency’s
research activities related to cleanup, and to EPA’s Office of Inspector General account for
independent auditing, investigation, and evaluation of the Superfund program. Some funding also
is provided for related homeland security activities of EPA. Table 3 compares the FY2011
enacted amounts for these activities to the President’s FY2011 request and appropriations enacted
for FY2010.
Table 3. Appropriations for the Hazardous Substance Superfund Account:
FY2011 and FY2010 Enacted, and the President’s FY2011 Request
(millions of dollars)
FY2010
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
FY2011
Request
FY2011
Enacted
P.L. 112-10
Remedial
$605.4
$605.4
$605.4
Emergency Response and Removal
$202.3
$202.8
$200.5
Federal Facilities (Oversight)
$32.1
$31.5
$31.1
Enforcement
$195.4
$198.9
$191.6
Operations and Administration
$139.2
$138.3
$136.6
Homeland Security
$56.5
$43.5
$41.7
Other Program Areas
$75.5
$72.7
$74.0
$1,306.5
$1,293.1
$1,280.9
Transfer to Science and Technology
-$26.8
-$24.5
-$26.8
Transfer to Office of Inspector General
-$10.0
-$10.2
-$10.0
Superfund Account After Transfers
$1,269.7
$1,258.4
$1,244.2
Program Area and Transfers to Other
EPA Accounts
Total Superfund Account
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2010 enacted appropriations are from the conference
report to accompany the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2010 (H.R. 2996,
H.Rept. 111-316, p. 242). The President’s FY2011 requested amounts are from EPA’s FY2011 Annual Performance
Plan and Congressional Justification, p. 6 and pp. 942–945, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget; FY2011 enacted amounts
are as presented in information provided by the House Committee on Appropriations, which reflects the across-theboard 0.2% rescission included in P.L. 112-10. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
39
For information on the number of sites that EPA has placed on the NPL over time and their listing status, see the
Superfund Program website: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/index.htm.
40
CERCLA authorizes two types of response actions: “remedial” actions that are intended to provide a more permanent
solution to prevent potentially harmful exposure to contamination, and “removal” actions that are intended to respond
to more immediate risks and address emergency situations.
Congressional Research Service
11
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Cleanup Progress
Debate over the sufficiency of funding for the Superfund program has centered primarily on the
pace and adequacy of cleanup at NPL sites. EPA mainly has used the measure of “construction
completion” to track cleanup progress over the life of the program. This measure generally
indicates that all cleanup remedies are in place and operating as intended, after which point longterm operation and maintenance may continue for years or even decades in some instances. The
annual number of construction completions has been declining for more than a decade, from a
high of 88 in FY1997 to 18 in FY2010.41 This overall downward trend has raised questions as to
whether funding levels for the Superfund program have been adequate to maintain consistent
cleanup progress to ensure protection of human health and the environment. In conjunction with
this trend, some have observed that the relatively steady funding levels over the past decade have
resulted in fewer resources over time because of inflation. However, funding alone is not the sole
factor that determines the pace of cleanup. The scope and complexity of cleanup challenges at
individual sites, and technological capabilities, can be significant factors as well.
Superfund Taxes
Interest in greater resources to enhance cleanup progress has raised the issue of whether the
dedicated industry taxes that once helped to finance the Superfund program should be reinstated.
Excise taxes on the sale of petroleum and chemical feedstocks, and a special environmental tax
on corporate income historically provided the majority of funding for the Hazardous Substance
Superfund Trust Fund. This fund finances discretionary appropriations to the Superfund account
to carry out the Superfund program. The authority to collect these taxes expired on December 31,
1995. As the remaining revenues were expended over time, Congress has increased the
contribution of tax revenues from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury to the Superfund Trust
Fund, in an effort to make up for the shortfall in revenues from the expired industry taxes.42
Whether to reinstate Superfund taxes has been a long-standing controversy for over 15 years. The
debate has involved numerous issues regarding whether the taxes ensure that polluters pay for the
cleanup of contamination, or whether the taxes may place an unfair burden of the costs on certain
parties who did not cause or contribute to contamination.43 Reinstatement of the taxes would be
subject to the enactment of reauthorizing legislation. The President’s FY2011 budget request
included a legislative proposal to reinstate Superfund taxes through FY2020.44 Legislation to
reauthorize the taxes was introduced, but not enacted in the 111th Congress. At least three bills
have been introduced again in the 112th Congress to date (H.R. 1596, H.R. 1634, and S. 461).
41
The number of construction completions from FY1994 through FY2010, and so far in FY2011, is available on the
Superfund program website: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplfy.htm.
42
Congress now finances the Superfund Trust Fund mostly with general Treasury revenues, but other sources continue
to contribute some revenue, including interest on the balance of the trust fund, fines and penalties collected for
violations of cleanup requirements, and recovery of cleanup costs from the potentially responsible parties. Although the
dedicated industry taxes have expired, it should be noted that industry has continued to help finance the Superfund
Trust Fund through corporate income taxes that contribute to general Treasury revenues, along with individual income
taxes and other miscellaneous receipts and collections deposited into the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury.
43
For more information, see the “Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund” section in CRS Report R41039,
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund Cleanup
Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act, by (name redacted).
44
OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government for FY2011, “Analytical Perspectives,” p. 175 and p. 185.
Congressional Research Service
12
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Brownfields45
EPA also administers a Brownfields program to provide financial assistance to state, local, and
tribal governments46 for the cleanup of less hazardous sites that are not addressed under the
Superfund program or other cleanup authorities, but at which the known or suspected presence of
contamination may present an impediment to economic redevelopment. Consistent with liability
under CERCLA, potentially responsible parties at these sites are not eligible for this financial
assistance, as they are to be held accountable for the cleanup costs. In effect, the Brownfields
program generally is intended to provide financial assistance for “orphan” sites not listed on the
NPL, at which the threat of contamination may be an obstacle to redevelopment.47 P.L. 112-10
included a total of $172.9 for EPA’s Brownfields program, nearly the same as the FY2010 enacted
appropriation of $173.6 million. These amounts are similar to enacted appropriations over the
past few years,48 but the FY2011 enacted appropriation is $42.2 million less than the President’s
FY2011 request of $215.1 million. Table 4 compares the FY2011 enacted appropriations to the
President’s FY2011 request and the appropriations enacted for FY2010 by EPA account for the
two types of grants awarded under EPA’s Brownfields program, and presents a breakout of the
expenses of EPA to administer the grant awards.
45
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialis t in Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
46
Non-profit organizations also may be eligible for site-specific remediation grants, subject to determination by EPA
based on certain statutory criteria.
47
For more information on the scope and purpose of this program, see the “Brownfields Properties” section in CRS
Report R41039, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund
Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act, by (name redacted).
48
FY2009 was an exception to this trend with $100.0 million in supplemental funds provided in ARRA (P.L. 111-5).
Congressional Research Service
13
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Table 4. Appropriations for EPA’s Brownfields Program:
FY2011 and FY2010 Enacted, and the President’s FY2011 Budget Request
(millions of dollars)
FY2010
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
FY2011
Request
FY2011
Enacted
P.L. 112-10
Section 104(k) Competitive Project Grantsa
$100.0
$138.3
$99.8
Section 128 Categorical Grants to States and
Tribesb
$49.5
$49.5
$49.4
Brownfields Grants Total
$149.5
$187.7
$149.2
Account/Program Area
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Account
Environmental Programs and Management Account
EPA Administrative Expenses
$24.2
$27.4
$23.7
Brownfields Program Total
$173.6
$215.1
$172.9
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2010 Enacted appropriations are from the
conference report to accompany the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
FY2010 (H.R. 2996, H.Rept. 111-316, p. 241 and p. 243). The President’s FY2011 requested amounts are from
EPA’s FY2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, p. 920, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget;
FY2011 enacted amounts are as presented in information provided to CRS by the House Committee on
Appropriations, which reflects the across-the-board 0.2% rescission included in P.L. 112-10. Numbers may not
add due to rounding.
a.
Under Section 104(k) of CERCLA, EPA may award competitive grants to eligible entities for the assessment
or remediation of brownfields to prepare them for redevelopment.
b.
Under Section 128 of CERCLA, EPA may award grants to states and tribes to establish or enhance their
own cleanup programs, which in turn may assist in the assessment or remediation of brownfields.
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Program49
As indicated in Table 5 below, the FY2011 appropriations act approved the transfer to EPA from
the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund of $112.9 million, slightly less than
the FY2010 appropriations and the President’s FY2011 request. These Trust Fund monies are
used by states and EPA to implement the LUST corrective action and the UST leak prevention
programs. Another $2.5 million was included within the STAG account for categorical grants to
support state enforcement and implementation of certain other UST leak prevention and detection
regulations, roughly the same as the FY2010 level and the President’s FY2011 request.
Congress established the LUST Trust Fund to provide a source of funds to address leaks from
petroleum USTs.50 The trust fund is supported by a 0.1 cent-per-gallon motor fuels tax and had a
balance of $3.2 billion at the beginning of FY2011. EPA and the states (through state cooperative
agreement grants) use the LUST funds primarily to oversee and enforce LUST cleanup activities
conducted by responsible parties. Funds also are used to take emergency actions, clean up
49
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialistin Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
50
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA; P.L. 99-499), Title V, amended the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, Subtitle I, 42 U.S.C. § 6991-6991i).
Congressional Research Service
14
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
abandoned tank sites, and pursue cost recovery actions.51 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct,
P.L. 109-58) expanded the leak prevention provisions in the UST regulatory program, imposed
new responsibilities on the states and EPA, and broadened the authorized uses of the LUST Trust
Fund to support state implementation of the leak prevention requirements, in addition to
supporting the LUST cleanup program. Congress now appropriates funds from the trust fund to
support both the LUST cleanup program and the UST leak prevention and detection program.
Before EPAct, the UST program had been supported entirely from general revenues.
An emerging issue is whether the effect of alternative fuels on storage tank infrastructure has
caused more leaks and may increase the need for cleanup funds in the future. The renewable fuel
mandates in EPAct and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA; P.L. 110-140)
present new technical issues for USTs and for fuel storage and delivery infrastructure, generally.
Storage tanks are not designed for higher blends of ethanol. EPA estimates that half the tanks in
the ground are 20 years old and have never been tested for compatibility with higher ethanol
blends. Tank owners, EPA, states, and industry are concerned that a new wave of leaks could
occur as the amount of ethanol blended in gasoline increases to meet EISA renewable fuel
requirements. Under this scenario, EPA expects that more leaks will occur, potentially
contaminating groundwater and placing more demands on the LUST Trust Fund. Currently, a key
area of work for EPA is assessing the compatibility of USTs with alternative fuel and evaluating
the transport and degradation characteristics of ethanol and biodiesel blends.52
Table 5. Appropriations for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
Program Account: FY2011 and FY2010 Enacted,
and the FY2011 President’s Budget Request
(millions of dollars)
FY2010
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
FY2011
Request
FY2011
Request
LUST Account
$113.1
$113.2
$112.9
EPAct Provisions
$34.4
$34.4
$34.4
$2.5
$2.5
$2.5
Account/Program Area
STAG Account
Categorical Grant: UST
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2010 enacted appropriations are from the
conference report accompanying the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
FY2010 (H.R. 2996, H.Rept. 111-316, pp. 242–243). The President’s FY2011 requested amounts are from EPA’s
FY2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget; FY2011
enacted amounts are as presented in information provided by the House Committee on Appropriations which
reflects the across-the-board 0.2% rescission included in P.L. 112-10. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
51
For further discussion, CRS Report RS21201, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (USTs): Prevention and
Cleanup, by (name redacted).
52
For further discussion of biofuels issues, see CRS Report R40155, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Overview and
Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
15
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Air Quality53
Congressional interest in EPA’s implementation of several provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
and proposed changes to this law and its regulations,54 was a major area of concern in hearings
and during floor debate with respect to FY2011 funding for the agency’s air quality programs.
Most of this funding is allocated among EPA’s accounts: grants to states and tribes in the STAG,
EPM, and Science and Technology (S&T) accounts.55 Funding within these accounts supports the
implementation of regulatory and grants programs, scientific research, and monitoring activities
related to air quality. Additional funding is provided within the Superfund account to support EPA
technical assistance for addressing potential radiation risks found at some Superfund sites.
P.L. 112-10 specified no funding be provided in the STAG account for the Targeted Airshed
Grants Program and for Climate Change Grants to Local Governments, a categorical grant within
the STAG account, the same as in the House and Senate proposals, and President’s FY2011
request. The FY2010 enacted amounts for these grants were $20.0 million and $10.0 million
respectively. Also, P.L. 112-10 specified $49.9 million within the STAG account for the Diesel
Emission Reduction Grants Program for FY2011, a reduction from the $60.0 million provided in
FY2010 and included in the FY2011 request.
House-passed H.R. 1 included seven provisions that would have restricted or prohibited use of
funds appropriated for activities related to specific EPA actions under the CAA.56 These
provisions were not included in P.L. 112-10 or S.Amdt. 149. H.R. 1 and S.Amdt. 149 had
proposed no FY2011 funding for the Diesel Emission Reductions Grant Program.57
Table 6 below presents a comparison of FY2011 enacted appropriations, FY2010 enacted
appropriations, and the President’s FY2011 request for selected air quality activities within
various EPA appropriations accounts.
53
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialis t in Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
54
See CRS Report R41563, Clean Air Issues in the 112th Congress, by (name redacted).
55
The Superfund account also includes a small amount of funding, relative to the above accounts.
56
For a more detailed summary of these provisions contained in House-passed H.R. 1, see Table 2 in CRS Report
R41698, H.R. 1 Full-Year FY2011 Continuing Resolution: Overview of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Provisions, by (name redacted).
57
For more background regarding these provisions and thee related funding contained in House-passed H.R. 1 and
S.Amdt. 149, see Table 1 and Table 2 in CRS Report R41698, H.R. 1 Full-Year FY2011 Continuing Resolution:
Overview of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Provisions, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
16
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Table 6. Appropriations for Selected EPA Air Quality Research and
Implementation Activities by Account: FY2011and FY2010 Enacted,
and the President’s FY2011 Budget Request
(millions of dollars)
Account/Program Area
FY2010
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
FY2011
Request
FY2011
Enacted
P.L. 112-10
Science and Technology Account
Air Toxics and Quality
$121,9
124.8
120.5
$1.2
$1.2
$1.3
$102.7
$107.3
$102.4
Air Toxics and Quality
$202.2
$220.9
$207.3
Indoor Air
$26.6
$27.8
$25.9
$2.5
$2.6
$2.5
Diesel Emission Grants (Energy Pol. Act)
$60.0
$60.0
$49.9
Targeted Airshed Grants
$20.0
$0.0
$0.0
Radon
$8.1
$8.1
$8.1
State & Local Air Quality Management Grants
$226.6
$309.1
$236.1
Tribal Air Quality Management Grants
$13.3
$13.6
$13.3
Indoor Air
Research: Clean Air (Incl. Global Change)
Environmental Programs and Management Account
Hazardous Substances Superfund
Air Toxics and Quality
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Account
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2010 enacted amounts are based on information
provided by the conference report to accompany the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies House
Committee on Appropriations Act for FY2010 (H.R. 2996, H.Rept. 111-316, pp. 240–243). The President’s
FY2011 requested amounts are from EPA’s FY2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification,
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget; FY2011 enacted amounts are as presented in information provided by the
House Committee on Appropriations which reflects the across-the-board 0.2% rescission included in P.L. 11210. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Much of the day-to-day operations of the nation’s air pollution control programs (i.e., monitoring,
permitting, enforcement, and developing site-specific regulations) is done by the states, not EPA.
The Clean Air Act authorizes federal grants to the states for up to 60% of the cost of running
these programs; for the last decade, however, the grant amounts have stagnated, with the federal
contribution falling to as little as 23% of the total cost of state air pollution programs. In the
current recession, state revenues have declined, and air programs, like other state spending, have
been under severe budgetary pressures. In response, the $236.1 million FY2011 enacted
appropriations for grants to the states for implementation of Clean Air Act programs was an
increase above the FY2010 enacted appropriations of $226.6 million in FY2010, but below the
$309.1 million included in the President’s request for FY2011. The requested increase was in
response to an anticipated rise in state workloads. EPA is in the process of reviewing air quality
standards for the six most widespread (“criteria”) air pollutants, and has either promulgated or
proposed strengthening five of the six.58 As these standards are finalized, the states will face a
58
For a further discussion, see CRS Report R41563, Clean Air Issues in the 112th Congress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
17
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
need to expand their monitoring networks, identify nonattainment areas, and develop and
implement plans for bringing nonattainment areas into attainment.
EPA’s diesel emission reduction grants program also generated interest during debate of EPA’s
FY2011 appropriations. The FY2011 appropriation of $49.9 million was below the $60.0 million
FY2010 appropriation and the same amount in the President’s FY2011 request. The ARRA (P.L.
111-5) provided an additional $300.0 million in supplemental funds for these grants in FY2009
for a total of $360.0 million in FY2009, much of which was awarded in FY2010 (see Table B-1
in Appendix B). The Energy Policy Act of 200559 authorized $200.0 million annually for these
grants from FY2007 through FY2011. EPA was authorized to award grants on a competitive basis
to assist regional, state, and local governments, tribes, and non-profit organizations in funding
projects that would reduce emissions from diesel-powered vehicles, engines, and equipment. Port
authorities and school districts have been among the major grant recipients. EPA has reported that
every dollar spent on diesel emission reductions generates up to $13.00 in health benefits.
Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Reduction60
A prominent issue of debate related to air quality had relatively little budgetary impact, but
received a great deal of attention as EPA proceeds with its response to a 2007 Supreme Court
decision. The decision, Massachusetts v. EPA,61 found greenhouse gases (GHGs) to be “air
pollutants” within the Clean Air Act’s definition of that term, and required EPA to consider
whether GHGs endanger public health or welfare, the first step in promulgating emission
standards. In December 2009, EPA formally responded to the Court decision by promulgating a
finding that greenhouse gases endanger both public health and welfare.62 The agency also found
that emissions of four specific GHGs from new motor vehicles contribute to that air pollution and
must be controlled. Pursuant to these findings, EPA promulgated standards for light-duty motor
vehicles, including cars and SUVs, in May 2010.63 The implementation of these standards, in
turn, triggered permitting and Best Available Control Technology requirements for new major
stationary sources of GHGs on January 2, 2011.
The motor vehicle standards promulgated in May 2010 have not been particularly controversial,
as they were negotiated with the automobile manufacturers and other interested parties. Besides
setting emission standards, the negotiated agreement requires California and 13 other states that
had been proceeding to implement motor vehicle GHG standards of their own to instead adopt
standards that are essentially identical to the federal standards.
59
In Subtitle G of Title VII of the act, P.L. 109-58.
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
61
549 U.S. 497 (2007).
62
Environmental Protection Agency, “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” 74 Federal Register 66496, December 15, 2009. The effective date of the finding
was January 14, 2010.
63
Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation, “Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule,” 75 Federal Register 25324, May 7,
2010. The effective date of the standards was July 6, 2010. Under this joint rule, EPA promulgated the vehicle emission
standards, and the Department of Transportation promulgated the vehicle fuel economy standards.
60
Congressional Research Service
18
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
It is the triggering of standards for stationary sources (power plants, manufacturing facilities, and
others) that has raised the most concern, resulting in efforts by many in Congress to prevent EPA
from implementing stationary source GHG emission requirements. These efforts have taken
several forms, including the introduction of resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional
Review Act in both the House and Senate, and stand-alone legislation in both bodies that would
forestall EPA action. The path to enactment of either of these forms of legislation is a steep one.
The Obama Administration has made the reduction of GHG emissions an important goal; as a
result, many believe that legislation restricting EPA’s regulatory authority, if enacted by Congress,
would encounter a presidential veto.
In its FY2011 budget submission, EPA requested $43.0 million for “additional regulatory efforts
aimed at taking action on climate change,” $25.0 million “for state grants focused on developing
technical capacity to address greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act,” and $13.5
million “for implementing new emission standards that will reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions from mobile sources” including “developing potential standards for large transportation
sources such as locomotives and aircraft engines, and analyzing the potential need for standards
under petitions relating to major stationary sources.”64 Whether to modify these amounts or to
prevent EPA from developing or implementing GHG emission standards for stationary sources
were among the prominent areas of debate and amendments considered during the debate of the
FY2011 appropriations.
EPA is one of 17 federal agencies that received appropriations for climate change activities in
recent fiscal years. Issues that have emerged within the context of appropriations by Congress
include (1) how different agency programs may be complementary or duplicative, (2) how these
programs may together constitute an effective strategy to achieve U.S. objectives, and (3) whether
there are gaps or opportunities for efficiencies that may be addressed. Most U.S. funding is aimed
at energy technology development, and at Earth observations to support the science enterprise.
Within the S&T account, the $20.5 million in FY2011 appropriated funding for climate change
research was less than the FY2010 appropriation of $20.8 million and the President’s request of
$22.0 million. EPA reported that the FY2011 request would support investigation of potential
health or ecosystem impacts of climate change, and options for adaptation. According to EPA the
research funding was to be used to assess whether modifications to EPA’s air and water pollution
control programs or regulations may be warranted as part of U.S. strategies to adapt or respond to
the anticipated impacts of climate change. An additional $16.8 million was provided for FY2011
within the S&T account for the development of advanced vehicle technologies under the Climate
Protection Program, less than the FY2010 enacted appropriation of $19.8 million and $16.9
million requested for FY2011. This aspect of the program funds technologies that would reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and conserve energy in the transportation sector.
64
Testimony of Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Hearing on the President’s
Proposed EPA Budget for FY2011,” Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, February 23, 2010, pp. 2–3.
Congressional Research Service
19
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
In addition to the adequacy of funding for specific climate change activities, a larger issue has
been the overall role of EPA as interagency discussion continues over whether to establish a
National Climate Service, the scope of which may include but be potentially broader than the
climate services being established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Appropriations to fund EPA’s role may be affected by views on whether and how EPA
should engage in providing climate services, including observations (e.g., monitoring);
development of forecasts and decision tools; the providing of information to states, localities, and
sources; and other similar services. As discussed in the “Air Quality” section of this report, EPA’s
role in regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act also has been an issue.
The FY2011 enacted appropriations included $107.5 million for the Climate Protection Program
activity, less than the $113.0 million FY2010 appropriations and the $123.1 million included in
the President’s request for FY2011. A more detailed breakout of the allocation of the FY2011
enacted appropriations is not readily available. According to the EPA FY2011 Justification $20.8
million of the funding as requested was to be use to carry out the Mandatory Reporting of GHG
Rule, $4.1 million more than the FY2010 enacted appropriation of $16.7 million.65 EPA action to
establish mandatory GHG reporting was required by Congress in the FY2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161). Reliable GHG data would be critical to informing the
development of efficient policies. Experience in the European Union has demonstrated the
adverse consequences of inadequate emissions data as a baseline for setting regulatory
requirements in allocating allowances in its Emissions Trading System.66 FY2011 enacted
funding levels for climate change protection implementation and research activities comparable
to each of those activities as requested for FY2011 are not readily available. Table 7 presents a
comparison of FY2011enacted and FY2010 appropriations and the President’s FY2011 request
where comparable data available for informational purposes only.
65
66
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.
See, for example, http://www.climnet.org/component/content/article/55.
Congressional Research Service
20
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Table 7. Appropriations for EPA Climate Change Protection and Research:
FY2011 and FY2010 Enacted, and the President’s FY2011 Budget Request
(millions of dollars)
FY2010
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
FY2011
Request
FY2011
Enacted
Climate Protection Program (clean automotive technology)
$19.8
$16.9
$16.8
Research Global Change (mostly impacts)
$20.8
$22.0
$20.5
$113.0
$123.1
$107.5
Energy Star
$52.6
$55.5
NA
Methane-to-Markets
$4.6
$4.6
NA
Greenhouse gas reporting
$16.7
$20.8
NA
Other activities
$39.1
$42.2
NA
Federal Vehicle & Fuel Standards & Certification
NA
$6.0
NA
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
NA
$7.6
NA
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
NA
$4.9
NA
Local government climate change grants
$10.0
$0.0
$0.0
State & Local Air Quality Management
NA
$25.0
NA
EPA Accounts/Climate Change Activities
Science and Technology Account
Environmental Programs and Management Account
Climate Protection Program
Air Toxics and Quality
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Account
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. NA indicates comparable funding amounts are not readily
available. FY2010 enacted appropriations are from the conference report to accompany the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2010 (H.R. 2996, H.Rept. 111-316, pp. 240–243). The President’s
FY2011 requested amounts are from EPA’s FY2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification,
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget; FY2011 enacted amounts are as presented in information provided by the House
Committee on Appropriations which reflects the across-the-board 0.2% rescission included in P.L. 112-10,
supplemented with data included in EPA’s FY2011 Enacted Operating Plan as provided to CRS by EPA’s Office of
Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR) on June 10, 2011. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
21
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
As indicated in Table 7, the President’s FY2011 request included an increase above the FY2010
enacted levels for voluntary climate protection programs. These programs include Energy Star
and Methane-to-Markets, as well as other analytical (e.g., economic analysis) and other efforts
that encourage and assist the private sector, schools, hospitals, and other enterprises to inventory
and reduce their GHG emissions at a profit. Comparable FY2011 enacted amounts for these
programs are not readily available.
For FY2011, Congress did not specify and the Administration did not submit a request for
funding specifically for international efforts to address climate change. For several years,
previous requests proposed funding for international capacity building and for the Asia-Pacific
Partnership, though funding for the latter was never appropriated for EPA. Congress may consider
whether and at what level EPA has resources to engage in assisting governments in other
countries to establish effective GHG monitoring and control programs in the context of
international cooperation to address climate change. U.S. policy has emphasized the
responsibilities of other major emitters also to reduce their GHG emissions, and EPA has been
engaged historically in building institutional infrastructure and expertise that may help to realize
reductions and to establish peer-to-peer networks that may assist in verifying results.
Geographic-Specific/Ecosystem Programs67
The Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account includes funding for several
geographic-specific/ecosystem programs to address certain environmental and human health risks
in a number of identified areas of the United States. These programs often involve collaboration
among EPA, state and local governments, communities, and nonprofit organizations. Table 8
presents a comparison of the FY2011 enacted appropriations with the FY2010 enacted
appropriations and the President’s FY2011 request for selected geographic-specific/ecosystem
program areas.
67
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialis t in Resources and Environmental Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
22
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Table 8. Appropriations for Selected Geographic-Specific/Ecosystem Programs:
FY2011 and FY2010 Enacted, and the President’s FY2011 Budget Request
(millions of dollars)
FY2010
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
FY2011
Request
FY2011
Enacted
P.L. 112-10
Water: Ecosystems
$58.5
$55.5
$53.3
National Estuary Program
$32.6
$27.3
$26.7
Great Lakes Legacy Acta
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Wetlands
$25.9
$28.2
$26.5
Geographic Programs
$608.4
$416.1
$416.0
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
$475.0
$300.0
$299.4
Great Lakes Programa
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Chesapeake Bay Program
$50.0
$63.0
$54.4
Mississippi River Basinb
$0.0
$12.4
$0.0
San Francisco Bay
$7.0
$5.0
$5.3
South Florida
$2.2
$2.1
$1.7
Puget Sound
$50.0
$20.0
$38.1
Long Island Sound Program
$7.0
$3.0
$5.3
Gulf of Mexico Program
$6.0
$4.5
$4.6
Lake Champlain Basin Program
$4.0
$1.4
$3.0
Lake Pontchartrain
$1.5
$1.0
$1.1
Community Action for Renewed Environment (CARE)
$2.4
$2.4
$1.9
Other Geographic Programs and Regional Initiatives
$3.3
$1.3
$1.2
$666.9
$471.6
$469.3
Geographic/Ecosystem Program
Total Ecosystem/Geographic Programs
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2010 enacted appropriations are from the
conference report to accompany the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
FY2010 (H.R. 2996, H.Rept. 111-316, p. 241). The President’s FY2011 request amounts are from EPA’s FY2011
Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, pp. 267–317, and pp. 494–503, http://www.epa.gov/
ocfo/budget; FY2011 enacted amounts are as presented in information provided by the House Committee on
Appropriations which reflect the across-the-board 0.2% rescission included in P.L. 112-10. Numbers may not add
due to rounding.
a.
Funding for the Great Lakes Legacy Act and for EPA’s Great Lakes Program was moved to the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative in FY2010.
b.
An additional $4.6 million was included in the President’s FY2011 request within other sub-appropriation
account areas for activities related to the Mississippi Basin Program.
Congressional Research Service
23
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
In 2004 President Bush established a Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, chaired by EPA,68 to
develop a strategy (released in 2005) that will guide federal Great Lakes protection and
restoration efforts. To better coordinate these efforts, the FY2010 budget requested, and Congress
endorsed in P.L. 111-88, a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative involving EPA and eight other
federal agencies, plus a commitment of new federal resources. The purpose of the initiative is to
target the most significant problems in the ecosystem, such as aquatic invasive species, nonpoint
source pollution, and toxics and contaminated sediment.69 Projects and programs are to be
implemented through the grants and agreements with states, tribes, municipalities, universities,
and other organizations. The initiative consolidates funding for a number of existing federal Great
Lakes programs, including EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), its
implementation of the Great Lakes Legacy Act to clean up contaminated sediments, and other
agencies’ Great Lakes programs.
The FY2011 enacted appropriation of $299.4 million within EPA’s EPM account continues the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, $175.6 million below the FY2010 enacted appropriations, but
roughly the same as the President’s FY2011 request. Some Members and stakeholders expressed
concern about the reduced funding level proposed for FY2011. EPA officials noted that most of
the FY2010 enacted appropriations had not yet been obligated, and that two years’ of investment
totaling nearly $775.0 million represented a significant advance in the federal government’s
commitment to Great Lakes protection.
Chesapeake Bay and Mississippi River Basin
In May 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13508: Chesapeake Bay Protection and
Restoration, which directed the federal government to exercise greater leadership and actions to
restore the Bay. Despite restoration efforts of the past 25 years, which have resulted in some
successes in specific parts of the ecosystem, the overall health of the Bay remains degraded by
excessive levels of nutrients and sediment. The FY2011 enacted appropriation of $54.4 million
for EPA to implement the executive order and related activities to accelerate pollution reduction
and aquatic habitat restoration efforts in the Bay was an increase compared to the FY2010
enacted appropriation of $50.0 million, but was below the President’s FY2011 budget request of
$63.0 million (see Table 8).
The President’s FY2011 budget request had included nearly $17.0 million within the GeographicSpecific/Ecosystem Program area to address certain environmental issues in the Mississippi River
Basin. Of the total, $12.4 million was to be for grants to address pollution runoff from farms.70
Controlling such “non-point” source pollution was intended to reduce the introduction of
nutrients into the basin, which are thought to be a contributing cause of the severely oxygendepleted “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico.71 However, as shown in Table 8, Congress provided
no FY2011 appropriations for the Mississippi River Basin Initiative in P.L. 112-10.
68
The Great Lakes Interagency Task Force was established by Executive Order in 2004; for information see
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/iatf/index.html.
69
For information, see the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative website, http://greatlakesrestoration.us/.
70
The EPA FY2011 Annual Performance Plan Congressional Justification identifies an additional $600,000 for the
compliance monitoring program (see p. 246), and $3.8 million to support applicable nonpoint source recommendations
of the Nutrients Innovations Task Group and Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Action Plan (see p. 534) in the Upper
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
24
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Appendix A. Descriptions of EPA’s
Eight Appropriations Accounts
Since FY1996, EPA’s funding has been requested by the Administration and appropriated by
Congress under eight statutory accounts. Table A-1 describes the scope of the programs and
activities funded within each of these accounts. Prior to FY1996, Congress appropriated funding
for EPA under a different account structure, making it difficult to compare funding for the agency
historically over time by the individual accounts.
Table A-1. EPA’s Eight Appropriations Accounts
Science and Technology (S&T): The S&T account incorporates elements of the former Research and
Development account that was in place until FY1996. The S&T account funds the development of the scientific
knowledge and tools necessary to inform EPA’s formulation of pollution control regulations, standards, and agency
guidance. EPA carries out research activities not only at its own laboratories and facilities, but also through contracts,
grants, and cooperative agreements with other federal agencies, state and local governments, nonprofit organizations,
universities, and private businesses. Congress appropriates funds directly to the S&T account and transfers additional
funds from the Hazardous Substances Superfund account to the S&T account specifically to support research related
to the cleanup of hazardous substances.
Environmental Programs and Management (EPM): The EPM account funds a broad range of activities involved
in EPA’s development of pollution control regulations and standards, and enforcement of these requirements across
multiple environmental media, such as air quality and water quality. The EPM account also funds technical assistance
to pollution control agencies and organizations, and technical assistance on how regulated entities can assure
compliance with environmental requirements to avoid violations. Much of EPA’s administrative and operational
expenses are funded within this account as well.
Office of Inspector General (OIG): As amended, the Inspector General Act of 1978 established Offices of
Inspector General in numerous federal agencies, including EPA. These offices are intended to conduct independent
auditing, evaluation, and investigation of an agency’s programs and activities to identify potential management and
administrative deficiencies, which may create conditions for instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement of funds,
and to recommend actions to correct these deficiencies. Congress appropriates funds directly to EPA’s OIG account
and transfers additional funds from the Hazardous Substances Superfund account to the OIG account specifically to
support the office’s auditing, evaluation, and investigation of the Superfund program.
Buildings and Facilities: This account funds the construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration, and
purchase of fixed equipment and facilities owned or used by EPA.
Hazardous Substance Superfund: This account is funded by discretionary appropriations from a dedicated trust
fund of the same name, the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund. As amended, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) established the Superfund program to
clean up the nation’s most threatening sites and created the Superfund Trust Fund to finance the program. Dedicated
taxes on industry originally provided most of the revenues to the Superfund Trust Fund, but the taxing authority
expired at the end of 1995. Congress now finances this trust fund mostly with revenues from the General Fund of the
U.S. Treasury. EPA may use appropriations from the Superfund Trust Fund to enforce the liability of “potentially
responsible parties” for the cleanup of contaminated sites, and if the parties cannot be found or cannot pay at a site,
EPA may pay for the cleanup under a cost-share agreement with the state in which the site is located. Although the
Superfund account also funds EPA’s oversight of the cleanup of federal facilities by other agencies, these agencies fund
the actual cleanup with separate funds appropriated directly to them, not with Superfund monies.
(...continued)
Mississippi River Basin, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget.
71
See the Mississippi River Basin 2008 Action Plan, available at http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/actionplan.htm.
Congressional Research Service
25
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Oil Spill Response: As authorized by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, this account funds EPA’s activities to prepare
for and prevent releases of oil into the inland zone of the United States within the agency’s jurisdiction. The U.S.
Coast Guard has jurisdiction over oil spills in the coastal zone of the United States. EPA is reimbursed for its
expenses to respond to oil spills at inland sites from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is administered by the
U.S. Coast Guard.
The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund Program: Like the Superfund account, this
account is funded by discretionary appropriations from a dedicated trust fund of the same name, the LUST Trust
Fund. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 established this trust fund. The LUST Trust Fund
is financed primarily by a 0.1 cent per gallon tax on motor fuels, which is set to expire after September 30, 2011. EPA
may use appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund to pay for the prevention of, and response to, releases from
underground storage tanks that contain petroleum, which is not covered under Superfund. EPA and the states
(through cooperative agreements) may use the funds to oversee corrective actions (i.e., cleanup) performed by the
responsible parties, to conduct cleanups where a responsible party fails to do so or in case of an emergency, and to
recover LUST monies spent on cleanup from the responsible parties. In addition to these activities, the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 expanded the authorized uses of appropriated LUST monies to include implementation and enforcement
of EPA’s Underground Storage Tank leak prevention and detection program.
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG): The majority of the funding within the STAG account is for
capitalization grants for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). SRF funding is used for
local wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, such as construction of and modifications to municipal
sewage treatment plants and drinking water treatment plants, to facilitate compliance with Clean Water Act and Safe
Drinking Water Act requirements, respectively. The remainder of the STAG account funds other water
infrastructure grants, categorical grants to states and tribes for numerous pollution control activities, grants for the
cleanup of brownfields, and diesel emission reduction grants. Although the majority of funding for grants awarded by
EPA is funded within the STAG account, other agency accounts also fund various types of grants, such as the S&T and
EPM accounts.
Congressional Research Service
26
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Appendix B. Historical Funding Trends
The Nixon Administration established EPA in 1970 in response to growing public concern about
environmental pollution, consolidating federal pollution control responsibilities that had been
divided among several federal agencies. Congress has enacted an increasing number of
environmental laws, as well as major amendments to these statutes, over three decades following
EPA’s creation.72 Annual appropriations provide the funds necessary for EPA to carry out its
responsibilities under these laws, such as the regulation of air and water quality, use of pesticides
and toxic substances, management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes, and cleanup of
environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants to assist state, tribal, and local
governments in controlling pollution in order to comply with federal environmental requirements.
Table B-1 presents FY2007-FY2011 enacted appropriations for EPA by each of the eight
accounts. Figure B-1 presents a history of total discretionary budget authority for EPA from
FY1976 through FY2010, and the President’s FY2011 budget request, as reported by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) in the “Historical Tables” accompanying the President’s
Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011. Levels of agency budget authority prior to
FY1976 were not reported by OMB in the Historical Tables. In Figure B-1, the levels of
discretionary budget authority are presented in nominal dollars as reported by OMB, and are
adjusted for inflation by CRS to reflect the trend in real dollar values over time. EPA’s historical
funding trends generally reflects the evolution of the agency’s responsibilities over time, as
Congress has enacted legislation to authorize the agency’s programs and activities in response to
a range of environmental issues and concerns. In terms of the overall federal budget, EPA’s
annual appropriations have represented a relatively small portion of the total discretionary federal
budget (just under 1% in recent years).
Without adjusting for inflation, EPA’s funding has grown from $1.0 billion when EPA was
established in FY1970 to a peak funding level of $14.86 billion in FY2009. This peak includes
regular fiscal year appropriations of $7.64 billion provided for FY2009 in P.L. 111-8 and the
emergency supplemental appropriations of $7.22 billion provided for FY2009 in P.L. 111-5.
However, in real dollar values (adjusted for inflation), EPA’s funding in FY1978 was slighter
more than the level in FY2009, as presented in Figure B-1.
72
For a discussion of these laws, see CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws: Summaries of Major Statutes
Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Congressional Research Service
27
Table B-1. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency: FY2007-FY2011 Enacted
(millions of dollars not adjusted for inflation)
FY2007
P.L. 110-5
FY2008
P.L. 110-161
FY2009
Omnibus
P.L. 111-8
FY2009
ARRA
P.L. 111-5
FY2009
Total
FY2010
P.L. 111-88
FY2011
P.L. 112-10
—Base Appropriations
$733.4
$760.1
$790.1
$0.0
$790.1
$848.1a
$813.5
—Transfer in from Superfund
$ 30.2
+$25.7
+$26.4
$0.0
+$26.4
+$26.8
+$26.8
Science and Technology Total
$763.6
$785.8
$816.5
$0.0
$816.5
$874.9
$840.3
$2,358.4
$2,328.0
$2,392.1
$0.0
$2,392.1
$2,993.8
$2,756.5
—Base Appropriations
$37.2
$41.1
$44.8
$20.0
$64.8
$44.8
$44.7
—Transfer in from Superfund
$13.3
+$11.5
+$10.0
$0.0
+$10.0
+$10.0
+$10.0
Office of Inspector General Total
$50.5
$52.6
$54.8
$20.0
$74.8
$54.8
$54.7
Buildings & Facilities
$39.6
$34.3
$35.0
$0.0
$35.0
$37.0
$36.4
$1,255.1
$1,254.0
$1,285.0
$600.0
$1,885.0
$1,306.5
$1,280.9
—Transfer out to Office of Inspector General
$13.3
-$11.5
-$10.0
$0.0
-$10.0
-$10.0
-$10.0
—Transfer out to Science and Technology
$30.2
-$25.7
-$26.4
$0.0
-$26.4
-$26.8
-$26.8
$1,211.6
$1,216.8
$1,248.6
$600.0
$1,848.6
$1,269.7
$1,244.2
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
Program
$100.3
$105.8
$112.6
$200.0
$312.6
$113.1
$112.9
Oil Spill Response
$15.7
$17.1
$17.7
$0.0
$17.7
$18.4
$18.3
—Clean Water State Revolving Fund
$1,083.8
$689.1
$689.1
$4,000.0
$4,689.1
$2,100.0
$1,522.0
—Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
$837.5
$829.0
$829.0
$2,000.0
$2,829.0
$1,387.0
$963.1
—Special (Congressional) Project Grants
$0.0
$132.9
$145.0
$0.0
$145.0
$156.8
$0.0
$1,113.1
$1,078.3
$1,094.9
$0.0
$1,094.9
$1,116.4
$1,104.2
Science and Technology
Environmental Programs and Management
Office of Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
(before transfers)
Hazardous Substance Superfund (after transfers)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
—Categorical Grants
CRS-28
FY2007
P.L. 110-5
FY2008
P.L. 110-161
FY2009
Omnibus
P.L. 111-8
FY2009
ARRA
P.L. 111-5
FY2009
Total
FY2010
P.L. 111-88
—Brownfields Section 104(k) Grants
$88.7
$93.5
$97.0
$100.0
$197.0
$100.0
$99.8
—Diesel Emission Reduction Grants
n/a
$49.2
$60.0
$300.0
$360.0
$60.0
$49.9
—Other State and Tribal Assistance Grants
$90.6
$54.2
$53.5
$0.0
$53.5
$50.0
$19.9
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Total
$3,133.7
$2,926.2
$2,968.5
$6,400.0
$9,368.5
$4,970.2
$3,758.9
-$80.0
-$5.0
-$10.0
$0.0
-$10.0
-$40.0
-$140.0
$7,617.4
$7,461.5
$7,635.7
$7,220.0
$14,855.7
$10,291.9a
$8,682.1
Rescissions of Unobligated Balancesb
Total EPA Accounts
FY2011
P.L. 112-10
Source: Prepared by CRS using the most recent information available from House, Senate, or conference committee reports accompanying the annual appropriations
bills that fund EPA and Administration budget documents, including the President’s annual budget requests as presented by OMB, and EPA’s accompanying annual
congressional budget justifications. “ARRA” refers to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The ARRA amounts do not reflect rescission
of unobligated balances as per P.L. 111-226. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
a.
The amounts presented for the base appropriations for the S&T account and the EPA total include $2.0 million in supplemental appropriations for research of the
potential long-term human health and environmental risks and impacts from the releases of crude oil, and the application of chemical dispersants and other mitigation
measures under P.L. 111-212, Title II.
b.
The FY2007-FY2010 rescissions are from unobligated balances from funds appropriated in prior years within the eight accounts, and made available for expenditure in
a later year. In effect, these “rescissions” increase the availability of funds for expenditure by the agency in the years in which they are applied, functioning as an offset
to new appropriations by Congress. With regard to the FY2011 enacted rescissions, Sec. 1740 in Title IV of Div. B under P.L. 112-10 refers only to “unobligated
balances available for “Environmental Protection Agency, State and Tribal Assistance Grants”[not across all accounts], and does not specify that these funds are to be
rescinded from prior years. The EPA Administrator was to submit a proposed allocation of such rescinded amounts to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House and the Senate.
CRS-29
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011
Figure B-1. EPA Discretionary Budget Authority, FY1976-FY2010, and FY2011
President’s Request: Adjusted and Not Adjusted for Inflation
($ in billions)
18
16
14
$Billions
12
Adjusted for Inflation (Est.) 2010 Dollars
10
8
6
Nominal Dollars
4
2
0
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
Fiscal Year
2011
Request
Source: Prepared by CRS with information from the Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United
States Government Fiscal Year 2011, Historical Table: Table 5-4. CRS converted nominal dollars to 2010 dollars
using the GDP Chained Price Index from Table 10.1 Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical
Tables -1940–2015.
Note: FY1976 was the earliest fiscal year for which historical funding information on budget authority was
readily available from the Office of Management and Budget.
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
[redact ed]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
30
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
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 permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
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' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.