Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Congressional research reportSep 24, 2013
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Appropriations for FY2013:
Debate During the 112th Congress
(name redacted), Coordinator
Specialist in Environmental Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
(name redacted)
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
September 24, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R42520
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Summary
Preceding the March 26, 2013, enactment of the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6), during the 113th Congress, the Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2013 (P.L. 112-175, H.J.Res. 117), enacted September 28, 2012, provided
appropriations for federal departments and agencies—including the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)—funded under each of the regular appropriations bills through March 27, 2013.
The continuing resolution provided funding generally at FY2012 levels with an across-the-board
increase of 0.612% unless otherwise specified. Subsequent to the passage of the joint resolution
in 112th Congress, the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies released a draft bill on September 25, 2012, that
proposed $8.52 billion for EPA for FY2013. As reported July 10, 2012, by the House Committee
on Appropriations, Title II of H.R. 6091, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Act,
2013, proposed $7.06 billion for EPA for FY2013. The proposed level was $1.28 billion (15.5%)
below the President’s FY2013 request of $8.34 billion, and $1.39 billion (16.5%) below the
FY2012 enacted appropriation of $8.45 billion.
The House committee-reported bill, H.R. 6091, would have decreased funding for seven of the
eight EPA appropriations accounts compared to the President’s FY2013 request, and for six of the
accounts relative to FY2012 enacted levels. The largest decrease in H.R. 6091 as reported was for
the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account: $2.60 billion for FY2013, compared to
$3.36 billion requested (23% decrease) and $3.61 billion for FY2012 (28% decrease). This
account consistently contains the largest portion of the agency’s funding among the eight
accounts. The majority of the proposed decrease was attributed to a combined $507.0 million
reduction in funding for grants that provide financial assistance to states to help capitalize Clean
Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). Respectively, these funds finance local
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. H.R. 6091 as reported included $689.0
million for Clean Water SRF capitalization grants and $829.0 million for Drinking Water SRF
capitalization grants, compared to $1.18 billion and $850.0 million requested for FY2013, and
$1.47 billion and $917.9 million appropriated for FY2012, respectively.
The STAG account also includes funds to support “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, and these grants also assist multimedia projects. The $994.0 million total proposed for
FY2013 for categorical grants in H.R. 6091 as reported was $208.4 million less than the $1.20
billion requested for FY2013, and $94.8 million below the $1.09 billion FY2012 enacted amount.
Other prominent issues receiving attention during the 112th Congress within the context of
FY2013 EPA appropriations included funding for implementing certain air pollution control
requirements including greenhouse gas emission regulations, climate change research and related
activities, cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the Superfund program, cleanup of sites that
tend to be less hazardous (referred to as brownfields), and cleanup of petroleum from leaking
underground tanks. Additionally, several recent and pending EPA regulatory actions continued to
be controversial in the FY2013 appropriations. H.R. 6091 as reported included a number of
provisions (similar to those considered in the FY2012 appropriations debate) that would have
restricted the use of funding for the development, implementation, and enforcement of certain
EPA actions that cut across the various pollution control statutes’ programs and initiatives. These
provisions were not included in the September 28, 2012, FY2013 continuing resolution.
Congressional Research Service
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
EPA’s FY2013 Appropriations ......................................................................................................... 4
Key Funding Issues ................................................................................................................... 8
EPA Regulatory Actions ...................................................................................................... 9
Administrative Provisions ................................................................................................. 10
Research Activities ............................................................................................................ 10
Other Programs and Activities .......................................................................................... 11
Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure ................................................................. 11
Other STAG Grants ........................................................................................................... 15
Air Quality and Climate Change Issues ............................................................................ 18
Cleanup of Superfund Sites ............................................................................................... 24
Brownfields ....................................................................................................................... 32
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Program ..................................................... 34
Geographic-Specific/Ecosystem Programs ....................................................................... 36
National (Congressional) Priorities and Earmarks ............................................................ 38
Figures
Figure 1. EPA FY2013 Appropriations Reported by Account Requested and as Proposed
in H.R. 6091 as Reported July 10, 2012 (Before Transfers Between Accounts) .......................... 7
Figure A-1. EPA Discretionary Budget Authority FY1976-FY2012 and
FY2013 President’s Request: Adjusted and Not Adjusted for Inflation ..................................... 43
Figure A-2. EPA’s Authorized Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Employment Ceiling,
FY2001-FY2012 Actual and FY2013 Requested and Proposed ................................................ 44
Tables
Table 1. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency: FY2010-FY2012
Enacted, the President’s FY2013 Budget Request, and House Committee-Reported
H.R. 6091...................................................................................................................................... 6
Table 2. Appropriations for Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)
Capitalization Grants: FY2010-FY2012 Enacted, Proposed for FY2013 in the
President’s Budget Request and House Committee-Reported H.R. 6091 .................................. 13
Table 3. Appropriations for Categorical Grants within the State and Tribal Assistance
Grants (STAG) Account: FY2010-FY2012 Enacted, Proposed for FY2013 in the
President’s Budget Request and House Committee-Reported H.R. 6091 .................................. 17
Table 4. Appropriations for Selected EPA Air Quality Research and Implementation
Activities by Account: FY2010-FY2012 Enacted, Proposed for FY2013 in the
President’s Budget Request and House Committee-Reported H.R. 6091 .................................. 22
Table 5. Appropriations for the Hazardous Substance Superfund Account: FY2010FY2012 Enacted, and Proposed for FY2013 in the President’s Budget Request and
House Committee-Reported H.R. 6091 ...................................................................................... 26
Congressional Research Service
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Table 6. Appropriations for EPA’s Brownfields Program: FY2010-FY2012 Enacted, and
Proposed for FY2013 in the President’s Budget Request and House CommitteeReported H.R. 6091 .................................................................................................................... 33
Table 7. Appropriations for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program
Account: FY2010-FY2012 Enacted, Proposed for FY2013 in the President’s Budget
Request and House Committee-Reported H.R. 6091 ................................................................. 36
Table 8. Appropriations for Selected Geographic-Specific/Ecosystem Programs: FY2010FY2012 Enacted, Proposed for FY2013 in the President’s Budget Request and House
Committee-Reported H.R. 6091 ................................................................................................. 37
Table A-1. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency:
FY2008-FY2012 Enacted, and Proposed for FY2013 in the President’s Budget
Request and House Committee-Reported H.R. 6091 ................................................................. 41
Table B-1. EPA’s Eight Appropriations Accounts .......................................................................... 45
Table C-1. EPA Air Quality, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Program
Activities General Provisions ..................................................................................................... 48
Table C-2. EPA Water Quality Program Activities Provisions ...................................................... 51
Table C-3. EPA Superfund Program Provisions ............................................................................ 54
Table C-4. EPA Toxic Chemical Regulatory Programs ................................................................. 54
Table C-5. EPA Pesticide Programs Provisions ............................................................................. 55
Table C-6. Related Provisions Not Under EPA’s Jurisdiction........................................................ 55
Appendixes
Appendix A. Historical Funding Trends and Staffing Levels ........................................................ 40
Appendix B. Descriptions of EPA’s Eight Appropriations Accounts ............................................. 45
Appendix C. Selected Provisions Contained in House Committee-Reported H.R. 6091
and Accompanying Report ......................................................................................................... 47
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 55
Congressional Research Service
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Introduction
Early during the 113th Congress, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act,
2013 (P.L. 113-6), enacted March 26, 2013, appropriated funding for the full fiscal year through
September 30, 2013. Seven regular appropriations acts, including Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies, which funds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are covered by the
full-year continuing appropriations provided in Division F of P.L. 113-6.The discussion in this
report focuses on the debate and actions regarding EPA FY2013 appropriations during the 112th
Congress preceding the enactment of P.L. 113-6. For discussion of the full fiscal year funding for
FY2013, see CRS Report R43207, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for
FY2013 in P.L. 113-6, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
On September 28, 2012, the President signed a continuing resolution (P.L. 112-175, H.J.Res.
117), the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013, to provide appropriations for federal
departments and agencies, including EPA, funded under each of the regular appropriations bills
through March 27, 2013.1 Section 101(a) of P.L. 112-175 as enacted (H.J.Res. 117) generally
continued the rate of appropriations for operations of EPA and other departments and agencies at
the FY2012 enacted level. Section 101(c) increased those amounts by 0.612%, with the exception
of activities funded in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-77). The continuing
resolution (P.L. 112-175, H.J.Res. 117) also funded certain activities of the Department of
Defense (DOD) designated as “Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism,” and
various departments and agencies for which specific funding levels are designated in the
resolution itself. Section 116(a) of P.L. 112-175 (H.J.Res. 117) required EPA and all other
departments and agencies to submit a spending, expenditure, or operating plan to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations 30 days after enactment.
Subsequent to the passage of H.J.Res. 117 by Congress, the bipartisan leadership of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies released2 a draft
bill on September 25, 2012, that proposed $8.52 billion for EPA for FY2013.3 The leadership
intended the draft document to “... serve as a roadmap as discussions continue to finalize a
responsible, balanced fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill.”4 Prior to the passage of H.J.Res. 117
by Congress, the House Committee on Appropriations reported the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Act, 2013 (H.R. 6091, H.Rept. 112-589), on July 10, 2012. Title II of the House
committee-reported bill proposed a total of $7.06 billion for the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for FY2013, $1.29 billion (15.5%) less than the President’s FY2013 request of
$8.34 billion, and $1.39 billion (16.5%) less than the $8.45 billion (including applicable
rescissions5) as enacted in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74).
1
The Senate passed the joint resolution (H.J.Res. 117) on September 22, 2012; the House passed the joint resolution on
September 13, 2012.
2
See September 25, 2012, press release by the chairman and ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?
method=news.view&id=fc23708b-fb33-4569-99b4-6cf0d0254457.
3
The Senate draft bill and accompanying table are available at http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?
method=news.view&id=17ceab53-cf32-4493-8c93-a22f3a51b2bc and http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/
news.cfm?method=news.view&id=2fde6f71-9b34-4455-85ff-db9b1ca2eee2. See also the Senate Committee on
Appropriations website, http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/.
4
See footnote 2.
5
Title IV, Division E of P.L. 112-74, Section 436(a): “Across-the-board Rescissions - There is hereby rescinded an
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
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 and
later amended an increasing number of environmental laws as well as major amendments to these
statutes. EPA’s appropriations support the agency’s primary responsibilities including 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, and to help fund the implementation and enforcement of federal regulations
delegated to the states. The adequacy of federal funds to assist states with these responsibilities
has become a more contentious issue over time, as state revenues and spending generally have
declined under recent economic conditions.
Since FY2006, Congress has funded EPA programs and activities within the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.6 In the annual budget resolution that is
intended to guide the annual appropriations process, EPA is included within Budget Function 300
for Natural Resources and Environment, along with the Department of the Interior and other
agencies. The budget resolution establishes policies and assumptions for spending and revenue
for each of the federal budget functions, but the discretionary funding made available to an
agency for obligation is determined in the annual appropriations process itself.7
The statutory authorization of appropriations for many of the programs and activities
administered by EPA has expired, but Congress has continued to fund them through the
appropriations process. Although House and Senate rules generally do not allow the appropriation
of funding that has not been authorized, these rules are subject to points of order and are not selfenforcing. Congress may appropriate funding for a program or activity for which the
authorization of appropriations has expired, if no Member raises a point of order, or the rules are
waived for consideration of a particular bill. Congress typically has done so to continue the
appropriation of funding for EPA programs and activities for which the authorization of
appropriations has expired, but has also not funded others.8 For FY2013 for example, the House
committee proposed limiting funding for unauthorized programs by decreasing or terminating
appropriations within the reported bill, including EPA’s U.S. Mexico border grant and
environmental education grant programs.9
(...continued)
amount equal to 0.16 percent of the budget authority provided for fiscal year 2012 for any discretionary appropriation
in titles I through IV of this Act.” FY2012 enacted amounts presented in EPA’s FY2013 Congressional Budget
Justification included the subsequent application of the rescission. The total FY2012 enacted appropriations for EPA in
P.L. 112-74 were $8.46 billion prior to the across-the-board rescission.
6
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.
7
For information on the FY2013 budget resolution, see CRS Report R42362, The Federal Budget: Issues for FY2013
and Beyond, by (name redacted).
8
As amended, Section 202(e)(3) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to report to Congress annually on the enacted appropriations for individual
programs and activities for which the authorization of appropriations has expired, and individual programs and
activities for which the authorization of appropriations is set to expire in the current fiscal year. The most recent version
of this report is available on CBO’s website at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42858.
9
In its report accompanying the proposed FY2013 appropriations, the House committee concluded that no less than 51
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
In comparison to historical funding levels adjusted for inflation, the total appropriation in H.R.
6091 as reported for EPA for 2013 was less than appropriations enacted by Congress in most prior
fiscal years since the agency was established in FY1970 (see Appendix A). EPA’s funding over
the long term generally has reflected an increase in overall appropriations to fulfill a rising
number of statutory responsibilities. 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 of
$14.86 billion in FY2009. The funding level that year 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 American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5). Table A-1 in Appendix A provides
a history of enacted appropriations (not adjusted for inflation) by EPA appropriations account
from FY2008 through FY2012, and includes the House committee-reported H.R. 6091 and the
FY2013 President’s budget request. Figure A-1 depicts historical funding trends (adjusted for
inflation) for the agency back to FY1976, and Figure A-2 presents EPA’s full-time-equivalent
(FTE) employment ceiling for FY2001 through FY2013 (proposed and requested).
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 annual funding.
The vast majority of the agency’s annual 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.10 Appendix B briefly describes the
scope and purpose of the activities funded within each of these accounts.
In this report, the House Committee on Appropriations is the primary source for the FY2011 and
FY2012 enacted amounts after rescissions,11 and the FY2013 amounts proposed by the House
committee and in the President’s budget request for FY2013 unless otherwise specified. FY2013
amounts for EPA provided in the continuing resolution as enacted (P.L. 112-175, H.J.Res. 117)
are not reflected in this report for the agency as a whole nor by account and program activity,
because the specific funding levels for most individual departments and agencies and their
program activities are not available at this time. As noted above, Section 116(a) of P.L. 112-175
(H.J.Res. 117) required EPA and all other departments and agencies to submit a spending,
expenditure, or operating plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 30 days
after enactment. The FY2013 amounts for EPA included in the Senate draft bill released
September 25, 2012, are also not included in the comparisons.
Additional information regarding the FY2013 request was obtained from EPA’s FY2013
Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations (referred to
(...continued)
agencies and/or programs, comprising nearly $6.0 billion in the FY2013 appropriations in the reported bill under the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee’s jurisdiction, are “unauthorized” or congressional
authorization of appropriation has expired (H.Rept. 112-589, pp. 7-8 and pp. 136-137).
10
Prior to FY1996, Congress appropriated funding for EPA under a different account structure, making it difficult to
compare past funding levels by account over the history of the agency.
11
The FY2011 enacted amounts reflect the application of a 0.2% across-the-board rescission included in P.L. 112-10.
The FY2012 enacted amounts reflect the 0.16% across-the-board rescission included in P.L. 112-74.
Congressional Research Service
3
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
throughout this report as the EPA FY2013 Congressional Justification),12 and the President’s
Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2013, issued by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB).13 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). With the exception of the historical funding
presented in Figure A-1 in Appendix A, 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.
Funding increases and decreases discussed in more detail in this report generally are calculated
based on comparisons between the proposed funding levels reported by the House Appropriations
Committee and requested by the President for FY2013, and the enacted FY2012 appropriations.
This report also includes references to funding levels enacted for FY2009 for certain EPA
programs and activities, including both the regular fiscal year appropriations provided in P.L. 1118 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.
The following sections of this report provide a brief overview of FY2013 funding for EPA as
proposed in the House committee-reported bill and contained the President’s FY2013 budget
request and enacted FY2012 for EPA. The report examines funding levels and relevant issues for
selected EPA programs and activities that received prominent attention during the debate in the
112th Congress. Appropriations are complex, and accordingly not all issues are summarized in this
report.14 Further, the appropriations bills and accompanying committee reports15 identify funding
levels for numerous programs, activities, and sub-activities that are beyond the scope of this
report.
EPA’s FY2013 Appropriations
Table 1 presents the FY2013 amounts for EPA proposed by the House Appropriations Committee
compared to the President’s FY2013 budget request, and the FY2012, FY2011, and FY2010
enacted amounts by each of the agency’s eight accounts (see detailed descriptions of the
appropriations accounts in Appendix B). The enacted amounts presented in the table reflect
rescissions and supplemental appropriations, where relevant. The table identifies transfers16 of
12
EPA’s FY2013 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, and other related
agency budget documents are available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget.
13
The multi-volume set of the President’s Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2013, is available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/.
14
OMB’s document for the entire federal budget totals more than 2,000 pages, and EPA’s budget justification more
than 1,400, and both present an array of funding and programmatic proposals for congressional consideration.
15
The committee reports also generally provide specific direction to the agency in terms of how the funds are to be
spent to implement a certain activity.
16
Although H.R. 6091, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee, did not include explicit statutory authority
within the Superfund account to transfer funds to the Science and Technology account and the Office of Inspector
General account, the committee’s report on the bill did recommend funding within the Superfund account for the
activities that had been supported by these transfers in past years (Research, and Audits, Evaluations, and
Investigations). In its report, the committee continued to present these amounts as transfers, which would appear to
presume that EPA would have some other authority to execute the transfers, as transfers from one account to another
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
funds between the appropriations accounts, and funding levels for several program areas within
certain accounts that have received prominent attention. Figure 1 following Table 1 presents a
comparison of the allocation of the total FY2013 appropriations among the agency’s eight
appropriations accounts as proposed in the House committee-reported bill and the President’s
budget request.
H.R. 6091 as reported proposed $7.06 billion for EPA for FY2013, 15.5% below the President’s
FY2013 request of $8.34 billion, and 16.5% below the FY2012 enacted appropriation of $8.45
billion provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74). As indicated in
Table 1, the overall total decrease proposed in the House committee-reported bill for EPA below
the President’s FY2013 request and FY2012 enacted level resulted largely from the proposed
reductions of $753.7 million (22.5%) and $1.01 billion (28.0%), respectively, for the State and
Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account. Most of the proposed decrease in the STAG account is
attributed to a combined $507.0 million reduction below the FY2013 request and $866.3 million
below FY2012 enacted funding for grants to help capitalize Clean Water and Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds (SRFs) (see “Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure” below).
Relative to the FY2013 President’s request, the House committee-reported bill proposed
reductions for FY2013 for nearly all other state and tribal grants funded within the STAG
account, including most of the “categorical grants.” Categorical grants are used by states and
tribes to support the day-to-day implementation of federal environmental laws, such as
monitoring, permitting and standard setting, training, enforcement, and other pollution control
and prevention activities. These grants also assist multimedia projects. House committeeproposed reductions generally would fund these grants at FY2012 levels, with the exception of
reductions for a subset of certain grants below the FY2012 enacted level, and an increase above
FY2012 for one grant program to support wetlands development (see “Other STAG Grants”
below).
Proposed funding in House committee-reported H.R. 6091 for the remaining EPA accounts, with
the exception of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund (LUST) account, were below
the FY2013 request. The FY2013 levels proposed in the House committee-reported bill were
below the FY2012 enacted levels for each of EPA’s accounts, except for the Office of Inspector
General and Buildings and Facilities accounts, which was the same as the FY2012 enacted
amounts. The House committee-reported bill proposed a variety of decreases and increases in
funding for many of the individual programs and activities funded within the eight appropriations
accounts compared to the FY2013 requested and FY2012 enacted levels.
In addition to the funding amounts presented by account in Table 1, the “Administrative
Provisions” for EPA in Title II of H.R. 6091, as reported, proposed a rescission of $130.0 million
from unobligated balances funded through the STAG account. The FY2013 request proposed a
$30.0 million rescission of prior years’ unobligated balances, but did not specify from which
account. Similar rescissions of unobligated balances have been included in EPA appropriations
since FY2006. For FY2012, Title II of Division E under P.L. 112-74 included a rescission of
$50.0 million from unobligated balances funded through the Hazardous Substance Superfund
($5.0 million) and STAG ($45.0 million) accounts.
(...continued)
generally must be authorized in law (31 U.S.C. §1532).
Congressional Research Service
5
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Table 1. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency:
FY2010-FY2012 Enacted, the President’s FY2013 Budget Request,
and House Committee-Reported H.R. 6091
(millions of dollars; enacted amounts include rescissions and supplemental appropriations)
FY2010
Enacted
P.L. 111-88a
FY2011
Enacted
P.L. 112-10
FY2012
Enacted
P.L. 112-74
FY2013
Request
FY2013
House
Committee
H.R. 6091
—Base Appropriations
$848.1
$813.5
$793.7
$807.3
$738.4
—Transferb in from Superfund
+$26.8
+$26.8
+$23.0
+$23.2
+$23.0
Science and Technology (with transfers)
$874.9
$840.3
$816.7
$830.5
$761.3
Environmental Programs and Management
$2,993.8
$2,756.5
$2,678.2
$2,817.2
$2,479.1
—Base Appropriations
$44.8
$44.7
$41.9
$48.3
$41.9
—Transferb in from Superfund
+$10.0
+$10.0
+$9.9
+$10.9
+$9.9
Office of Inspector General (with transfers)
$54.8
$54.7
$51.8
$59.1
$51.9
Buildings and Facilities
$37.0
$36.4
$36.4
$42.0
$36.4
Hazardous Substance Superfund (before transfers)
$1,306.5
$1,280.9
$1,213.8
$1,176.4
$1,164.9
—Transferb out to Office of Inspector General
-$10.0
-$10.0
-$9.9
-$10.9
-$9.9
—Transferb out to Science and Technology
-$26.8
-$26.8
-$23.0
-$23.2
-$23.0
Hazardous Substance Superfund (after transfers)
$1,269.7
$1,244.2
$1,180.9
$1,142.3
$1,132.0
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
Program
$113.1
$112.9
$104.1
$104.1
$104.1
Inland Oil Spill Program (formerly Oil Spill Response)
$18.4
$18.3
$18.2
$23.5
$18.2
—Clean Water State Revolving Fund
$2,100.0
$1,522.0
$1,466.5
$1,175.0
$689.0
—Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
$1,387.0
$963.1
$917.9
$850.0
$829.0
—Special Project Grants
$156.8
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
—Categorical Grants
$1,116.4
$1,104.2
$1,088.8
$1,202.4
$994.0
—Brownfields Section 104(k) Grants
$100.0
$99.8
$94.8
$93.3
$60.0
—Diesel Emission Reduction Grants
$60.0
$49.9
$30.0
$15.0
$30.0
—Other State and Tribal Assistance Grants
$50.0
$19.9
$15.0
$20.0
$0.0
$4,970.2
$3,758.9
$3,612.9
$3,355.7
$2,602.0
-$40.0
-$140.0
-$50.0
-$30.0
-$130.0
$10,291.9
$8,682.1
$8,449.4
$8,344.5
$7,055.0
EPA Appropriation Accounts
Science and Technology
Office of Inspector General
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Total
Rescissions of Unobligated Balancesc
Total EPA Accounts
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2010 enacted amounts are as presented in 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). FY2011 enacted amounts are the prior-year amounts presented by the House
Appropriations Committee in its report accompanying the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Bill, 2012 (H.R. 2584, H.Rept. 112-151, pp. 192-200). FY2012 enacted amounts, and the FY2013 proposed amounts, are
as presented by the House Appropriations Committee in its report accompanying the Interior, Environment, and
Congressional Research Service
6
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2013 (H.R. 6091, H.Rept. 112-589, pp. 170-177), as reported July 10, 2012. The
FY2011 and FY2012 enacted amounts reflect applicable rescissions. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
a.
The amounts presented for the base appropriations for the Science and Technology (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.
Although H.R. 6091, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee, did not include explicit
statutory authority within the Superfund account to transfer funds to the Science and Technology account
and the Office of Inspector General account, the committee’s report on the bill did recommend funding
within the Superfund account for the activities that had been supported by these transfers in past years
(Research, and Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations). In its report, the committee continued to present
these amounts as transfers, which would appear to presume that EPA would have some other authority to
execute the transfers, as transfers from one account to another generally must be authorized in law (31
U.S.C. §1532).
c.
The FY2010 enacted 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,
Section 1740 in Title VII of Div. B under P.L. 112-10 referred only to “unobligated balances available for
‘Environmental Protection Agency, State and Tribal Assistance Grants’” [not across all accounts], and did
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. For FY2012 enacted, under the Administrative Provisions in Division E, Title II of P.L. 112-74,
unobligated balances from the STAG ($45.0 million) and the Hazardous Substance Superfund ($5.0 million)
accounts would be rescinded. FY2012 rescissions specified within the STAG account include $20.0 million
from categorical grants, $10.0 million from the Clean Water SRF, and $5.0 million each from Brownfields
grants, Diesel Emission Reduction Act grants, and Mexico Border. The rescission included for FY2013 in
H.R. 6091 and the President’s FY2013 request would be from prior years’ unobligated balances within the
STAG account.
Figure 1. EPA FY2013 Appropriations Reported by Account
Requested and as Proposed in H.R. 6091 as Reported July 10, 2012
(Before Transfers Between Accounts)
(dollars in millions)
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from H.R. 6091 as reported by the House
Committee on Appropriations and the accompanying report, H.Rept. 112-589, table pp. 170-177. Numbers may
not add due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
7
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Key Funding Issues
Much of the attention on EPA’s appropriations for FY2013 during the 112th Congress focused on
federal financial assistance for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects,17 various
categorical grants to states to support general implementation and enforcement of federal
environmental laws, funding for implementation and research support for air pollution control
requirements, climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, and funding for environmental
cleanup. Also garnering Congressional interest were the proposed funding levels for several
geographic-specific initiatives, including the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative,18 efforts to
restore the Chesapeake Bay, and congressionally designated “National Priorities” and certain
other program activities.
In commenting on the proposed reductions for EPA in its report on H.R. 6091, the House
Appropriations Committee noted that EPA “continues to play an important role in protecting
public and environmental health,” but expressed its concern about “the efforts of EPA to expand
its regulatory authority beyond what Congress intended by legislating via regulation.”19 The
committee stated its position that the proposed reductions in funding would “restore a needed
balance to the EPA’s budget, in light of previous increases and the severe fiscal challenges facing
our country.” In contrast, the Minority Views included in the committee’s report expressed the
concern of some Members that the reductions for EPA “would put at risk the very health and
safety of Americans.”20 These Members noted particular concerns about the proposed reductions
in funding for EPA programs that support local drinking water and wastewater infrastructure
projects, other water quality activities, science and technology to support EPA’s pollution control
responsibilities, and the cleanup of Superfund sites.
In addition to funding priorities among the various EPA programs and activities, several recent
and pending EPA regulatory actions21 that were central to debates on EPA’s FY2011 and FY2012
appropriations were again prominent in the debate regarding the FY2013 appropriations.22 EPA
regulatory actions issued under the Clean Air Act (CAA), in particular EPA controls on emissions
of greenhouse gases, as well as efforts to address conventional pollutants, received much of the
attention during the FY2012 appropriations debate and again in the FY2013 debate. Several
regulatory actions under other pollution control statutes administered by EPA also received
attention. Some Members expressed concerns related to these actions during hearings and markup
of EPA’s FY2013, FY2012, and FY2011 appropriations,23 and authorizing committees continued
to address EPA regulatory actions through hearings and legislation during the 112th Congress.
17
See CRS Report 96-647, Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations, by (name redacted).
Introduced in the FY2010 Interior Appropriations (P.L. 111-88).
19
H.Rept. 112-589, p. 5.
20
Ibid., p. 196.
21
See CRS Report R41561, EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?, by (name redacted) and (name re
dacted), for a discussion of selected EPA regulatory actions.
22
See hearings on EPA FY2013 budget request.
23
See CRS Report R41979, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) FY2012 Appropriations: Overview of Provisions
in H.R. 2584 as Reported, by (name redacted). For an overview of proposed provisions contained in House-passed
H.R. 1 and S.Amdt. 149, see CRS Report R41698, H.R. 1 Full-Year FY2011 Continuing Resolution: Overview of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Provisions, by (name redacted).
18
Congressional Research Service
8
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
The following sections discuss EPA issues that have generally received prominent attention in the
congressional appropriations debate during the 112th Congress.
EPA Regulatory Actions
Although not included in the continuing resolution for FY2013 appropriations (P.L. 112-175,
H.J.Res. 117) as enacted, a number of proposed administrative and general provisions in H.R.
6091 as reported July 10, 2012, addressed several EPA regulatory activities that were the focus of
considerable debate during deliberation on EPA’s FY2013 appropriations. As mentioned
previously, recent actions issued related to the CAA, in particular EPA controls on emissions of
greenhouse gases and efforts to address conventional pollutants (e.g., mercury, particulate matter,
sulfur dioxide), received much of the attention. Several actions under the Clean Water Act, Safe
Drinking Water Act, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) also received some attention. Concerns regarding these EPA
actions, as well as other agencies funded in the bill, were addressed primarily in the “General
Provisions.” Table C-1 through Table C-6 in Appendix C present the text of those general
provisions included in Title IV of H.R. 6091 impacting EPA, and include information regarding
the associated sections of the bill and whether a provision was an amendment adopted during fullcommittee markup, if applicable.
During the past two years, EPA has proposed and promulgated a number of regulations
implementing provisions of many of the federal pollution control statutes enacted by Congress.
Beginning in the first session of the 112th Congress and continuing into the second session, many
stakeholders and some Members expressed concerns that the agency has been “overreaching” the
authority given it by Congress, and ignoring or underestimating the costs and economic impacts
of proposed and promulgated rules, and potentially overstating the associated benefits. EPA and
others have countered that these actions were consistent with statutory mandates and in some
cases compelled by court ruling, that the pace in many ways is slower than a decade ago, and that
the costs and benefits are appropriately evaluated.24
The general provisions proposed in the House committee-reported bill would have impacted
ongoing and anticipated EPA activities, including those addressing greenhouse gas emissions,
hazardous air pollutants (e.g., asbestos), permitting of new source air emissions, water quality
impacts, lead-based paint removal, environmental impacts associated with livestock operations,
financial responsibility for Superfund cleanup, and stormwater discharge. Provisions included
restrictions or limitations on the use of funds, and prohibitions on certain actions (e.g.,
permitting), as well as requirements to conduct analyses and/or report on certain activities
including funding. Several of the provisions proposed for FY2013 in the House committeereported bill were similar to those enacted for FY2012 (P.L. 112-74), and to a subset of those
included in the House Appropriations Committee-proposed version of the FY2012 Interior,
24
CRS Report R41561, EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?, by (name redacted) and (name re
dacted), examines major or controversial regulatory actions taken by or under development at EPA since January
2009, providing details on the regulatory action itself, presenting an estimated timeline for completion of the rule
(including identification of related court or statutory deadlines where known), and, in general, providing EPA’s
estimates of costs and benefits, when available. The report also discusses factors that affect the time frame in which
regulations take effect.
Congressional Research Service
9
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill (H.R. 2584). P.L. 112-74 included a
subset of the House-proposed provisions.25
Administrative Provisions
EPA “Administrative Provisions” setting terms and conditions for the use of FY2013
appropriations under Title II in H.R. 6091, as reported, contained six provisions, including a
larger rescission of unobligated balances than had been requested within the STAG account and
authorization for EPA to transfer funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Imitative to other
federal agencies participating in this effort (discussed later in this report). Other provisions would
have authorized EPA to enter into cooperative agreements with federally recognized Indian tribes
or Intertribal consortia; authorized collection and obligation of pesticide registration fees under
FIFRA; raised the limitation on projects for construction, alteration repair, rehabilitation, and
renovations of EPA facilities to $150,000 per project within S&T, EPM, Superfund, OIG, and
LUST accounts; and increased the number of appointments for the Office of Research and
Development under the authority provided in 42 U.S.C. 209 from the existing maximum 30
persons to 50 persons per fiscal year.
Research Activities
In its report on H.R. 6091, the House Appropriations Committee included directive language
within the S&T account regarding specific EPA scientific research activities upon which some of
the agency’s pollution control decisions may be based. Certain directives for FY2013 built upon
those included in the conference report on the FY2012 appropriations bill (H.Rept. 112-331). For
example, the House Appropriations Committee included a directive that for FY2013 EPA would
need to make specific refinements and modifications to the agency’s policies and practices for
conducting human health risk assessments under the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).26
EPA uses this system to establish toxicity concentrations and risk thresholds for various chemical
substances, which may inform the agency’s regulatory decisions under multiple pollution control
statutes.
Also within the S&T account, the committee would not have provided a $4.25 million increase
for hydraulic fracturing research that the President had requested, and would have disallowed
EPA from using any of the funds that would be provided in H.R. 6091 to research environmental
justice impacts related to hydraulic fracturing. 27 Although the conferees on the FY2010
appropriations bill had urged EPA to study the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and
drinking water,28 the House Appropriations Committee noted in its report on H.R. 6091 that EPA
had expanded its research beyond the scope of the congressionally directed study. With respect to
other research related to drinking water, the committee rejected the $2.33 million reduction that
25
H.R. 2584 (H.Rept. 112-151) as reported by the House Appropriations Committee on July 19, 2011, and among
amendments considered and submitted prior to suspension of the House floor debate on July 28, 2011. Most of the
administrative provisions in the FY2012 enacted appropriations were similar to those proposed in H.R. 2584 as
reported and the Senate draft for FY2012, and the general provisions were similar to or a slightly revised subset of
those contained in the House committee-reported bill. Comparable general provisions were not proposed in the Senate
draft.
26
H.Rept. 112-589, p. 48-49.
27
Ibid., p. 48.
28
H.Rept. 111-316, p. 109.
Congressional Research Service
10
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
the President had requested for research of innovative technologies for small drinking water
systems.29
Other Programs and Activities
In its report on H.R. 6091, the House Appropriations Committee specified no FY2013 funding
within the EPM account for several activities, including the greenhouse gas New Source
Performance Standards; the Community Action for Renewed Environment (CARE) program; and
the Northwest Forest geographic program.30 Also under this account, no funding would have been
provided for EPA “Administrator Priorities.” The committee noted its concern that EPA had not
yet submitted a report identifying the amount of funding that the agency had allocated for the
Administrator’s priorities in FY2010 and FY2011, as directed in the conference report on the
FY2012 appropriations bill.31 The committee indicated that no funding would have been provided
in FY2013 for these priorities because of a “lack of transparency” in the nature of these activities
and the lack of “performance metrics.”32 The committee would have directed EPA to submit a
report that would identify how FY2011 and FY2012 funding was used for the Administrator
priorities.33 The committee proposed $2.20 million for the Administrator’s Immediate Office and
$4.24 million for the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, the latter of which
was $4.0 million below the budget request. The committee expressed concern raised by Member
offices regarding a backlog of responses to congressional letters, informal questions, and
questions for the record.34
With respect to enforcement, the committee expressed concerns regarding aerial compliance
monitoring, and directed EPA to submit a report providing certain information regarding aerial
monitoring activities.35 The committee noted that EPA and the states have used aerial monitoring
for nearly a decade as a “cost-effective” enforcement tool to verify compliance with
environmental laws, particularly in impaired watersheds. The committee would have directed
EPA to include information in its report on the number of enforcement actions for which aerial
monitoring was used as evidence to identify a violation, and the outcome of those actions.
Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure36
The overall decrease for FY2013 proposed in H.R. 6091 as reported compared to the President’s
FY2013 request and FY2012 enacted appropriations was largely due to the proposed reduction in
EPA’s STAG account for grants to aid states in capitalizing their Clean Water and Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds (SRFs).37 Historically, these grants have represented a relatively
29
H.Rept. 112-589, p. 48.
Ibid., p. 51-52.
31
H.Rept. 112-331, pp. 1075-1076.
32
H.Rept. 112-589, p. 54.
33
Ibid., p. 54.
34
Ibid., p. 53.
35
Ibid., p. 54-55.
36
(name redacted), Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and Industry
Division, was a primary contributor to this section.
37
The STAG account also funds state and tribal “categorical” grants to support the day-to-day implementation of
environmental laws. H.R. 6091 included $994.0 million to support these grant programs within the STAG account,
(continued...)
30
Congressional Research Service
11
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
significant proportion of EPA’s total appropriations. The amount proposed by the House
Appropriations Committee for these SRF capitalization grants represented roughly 21% of the
total EPA appropriation included in H.R. 6091 as reported for FY2013. Funding for SRF grants
included in the President’s FY2013 budget request was about 24% of the proposed total EPA
funding. In FY2011 and FY2012, more than 28% of EPA’s annual appropriations had been for
these SRF grants within the STAG account.
As indicated in Table 2 below, the House committee-proposed $1.52 billion combined for the
Clean Water and the Drinking Water SRFs for FY2013 was $507.0 million (25%) less than the
$2.03 billion in the President’s FY2013 request and $866.3 million (34%) less than the $2.38
billion enacted for FY2012. The combined amount was also less than the FY2011 and FY2010
enacted levels, as indicated in Table 2.38 The SRF funding 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,39 respectively.40 EPA awards SRF capitalization
grants to states and territories based on formulas.41
H.R. 6091 as reported proposed $689.0 million for the Clean Water SRF capitalization grants for
FY2013, 41% below the President’s FY2013 request of $1.18 billion and 53% below the FY2012
enacted level of $1.47 billion. The $829.0 million for the Drinking Water SRF capitalization
grants in the House committee-reported bill was also less than the FY2013 requested and FY2012
enacted levels, but the magnitude of decrease was significantly smaller, as shown in Table 2.
Although the House Appropriations Committee expressed its recognition of the importance of the
Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water SRFs to the states, it noted that these accounts received a
combined additional $6.00 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA; P.L. 111-5),42 and a “130 percent increase” in funding above FY2008 and FY2009
regular enacted appropriations in FY2010 or “… the equivalent of six years’ worth of
(...continued)
$208.4 million less than the President’s FY2013 request of $1.20 billion, and $94.8 million less than the FY2012
appropriation of $1.09 billion.
38
By comparison, the average annual total funding for the two SRF programs during the 12-year period prior to
FY2009 was $2.0 billion.
39
Although all of the infrastructure projects in the drinking water needs assessment would promote the health
objectives of the act, EPA reported that 16% ($52.0 billion) of the funding needed was attributable to SDWA
regulations, while $282.8 billion (84%) represented nonregulatory costs. Most nonregulatory funding needs typically
involve installing, upgrading, or replacing transmission and distribution infrastructure to allow a system to continue to
deliver safe drinking water. These system problems often do not cause a violation of a drinking water standard, but
projects to correct infrastructure problems may be eligible for DWSRF funding if needed to address public health risks.
Projects attributable to SDWA regulations typically involve the upgrade, replacement, or installation of treatment
technologies.
40
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).
41
Clean Water SRF capitalization grants are awarded to states according to a statutory formula established in the Clean
Water Act. The Drinking Water SRF capitalization grants are awarded among the states based on a formula developed
administratively by EPA, using the results of a drinking water needs survey to determine allotments among the states.
42
P.L. 111-5, the ARRA of 2009, included $4.0 billion in supplemental funding for FY2009 for the Clean Water SRF
capitalization grants and $2.0 billion for the Drinking Water SRF capitalization grants.
Congressional Research Service
12
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
appropriations in one calendar year.” 43 The House committee further asserted that funding these
accounts through regular appropriations is unsustainable and must shrink under the current
allocation, and encouraged the appropriate authorizing committees to examine funding
mechanisms for the SRFs that are sustainable in the long term.44 FY2013 funding levels included
in the House committee-reported bill for the two SRF programs are the same as the amounts
appropriated in FY2008.
Some Members objected to the proposed reductions, while others noted that the infusion of
greater resources in recent years through FY2009 supplemental funding provided under the
ARRA of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) have been instrumental in meeting many local water infrastructure
needs. The FY2013 request, and enacted levels for the three most recent fiscal years were larger
than the regular appropriations 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
A-1 in Appendix A).
Table 2. Appropriations for Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(SRF) Capitalization Grants: FY2010-FY2012 Enacted, Proposed for FY2013 in the
President’s Budget Request and House Committee-Reported H.R. 6091
(millions of dollars)
FY2010
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
FY2011
Enacted
P.L. 112-10
FY2012
Enacted
P.L. 112-74
FY2013
Request
FY2013
House
Committee
H.R. 6091
Clean Water
$2,100.0
$1,522.0
$1,466.5
$1,175.0
$689.0
Drinking Water
$1,387.0
$963.1
$917.9
$850.0
$829.0
Total SRF Appropriations
$3,487.0
$2,485.1
$2,384.4
$2,025.0
$1,528.0
SRF
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2010 enacted amounts are as presented in 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). FY2011 enacted amounts are the prior-year amounts presented by the
House Appropriations Committee in its report accompanying the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2012 (H.R. 2584, H.Rept. 112-151, pp. 192-200). FY2012 enacted amounts, and the FY2013
proposed amounts, are as presented by the House Appropriations Committee in its report accompanying the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2013 (H.R. 6091, H.Rept. 112-589, pp. 170-177), as
reported July 10, 2012. The FY2011 and FY2012 enacted amounts reflect applicable rescissions. Numbers may not
add due to rounding.
43
44
H.Rept. 112-589, p. 6.
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
13
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
The extent of federal assistance still needed to help states maintain sufficient capital in their SRFs
to finance projects has been an ongoing issue.45 Demonstrated capital needs for water
infrastructure, as identified in EPA-state surveys, continue to exceed appropriated funding. Some
advocates of a prominent federal role have cited estimates of hundreds of billions of dollars in
long-term needs among communities, and the expansion of federal water quality requirements
over time, as reasons for maintaining or increasing the level of federal assistance. Others have
called for more self-reliance among state and local governments in meeting water infrastructure
needs within their respective jurisdictions, and contend that reductions in federal funding for
SRFs are in keeping with the need to address the overall federal deficit and federal spending
concerns.
In addition to the funding levels for the SRFs, House committee-reported H.R. 6091 would not
have retained a requirement within the STAG account that 20% of SRF capitalization grant
assistance be used for “green” infrastructure. This requirement was initially required in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) and retained as modified
in the subsequent fiscal year appropriations. Further, H.R. 6091 would have required that between
20% and 30% of the funds available to each of the SRFs be used by states to provide an
additional subsidy to eligible recipients in the form of forgiveness or principal, negative interest
loans or grants (or a combination of these), or to restructure debt obligations.
While the SRF monies constitute the majority of EPA grant funds within the STAG account,
numerous other grants also are funded within this account.
Water Infrastructure in Geographic-Specific Areas
The President’s FY2013 request included funding for Alaska Native Villages and the U.S./Mexico
Border water infrastructure grants projects, but the House Appropriations Committee would not
have provided any funding for these projects for FY2013. Enacted appropriations for FY2011 and
FY2012 (and other previous fiscal years) had included funding for these geographic-specific
areas:
•
the FY2013 request included $10.0 million for the construction of wastewater
and drinking water facilities in Alaska Native Villages, compared to $10.0
million appropriated for FY2012, $10.0 million for FY2011, and $13.0 million
for FY2010; and
•
$10.0 million for wastewater infrastructure projects along the U.S./Mexico
border, compared to $5.0 million appropriated for 2012, $10.0 million for
FY2011, and $17.0 million for FY2010.
45
For example, see House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee February 28, 2012, hearing entitled “A Review of Innovative Financing Approaches for Community
Water Infrastructure Projects,” http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=1531, and Senate
Committee on Environmental and Public Works, Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife hearing entitled, “Local
Government Perspectives on Water Infrastructure” February 28, 2012 http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_id=a1ed45a6-802a-23ad-4b60-5c9fc29a8e49.
Congressional Research Service
14
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Other STAG Grants
Some Members and state stakeholder groups46 have expressed concerns about the adequacy of
federal grant funding to assist states in carrying out federal pollution control requirements,
particularly in light of recent economic conditions and the impacts on state budgets. In addition to
the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs, and the geographic-specific area infrastructure grants
discussed above, the STAG account funds “categorical grants” to states and tribes for numerous
pollution control activities, as well as separate grants for Brownfields Section 104(k) projects to
assess or remediate contaminated sites, Brownfields Section 128 grants to states and tribes to
implement their own cleanup programs, and diesel emissions reduction grants. Brownfields
grants are discussed in the section entitled “Brownfields,” and the diesel emissions reduction
grants are discussed in “Air Quality and Climate Change Issues,” later in this report.
Categorical Grants
H.R. 6091 as reported by the House Appropriations committee proposed $994.4 million to
support state and tribal “categorical” grant programs within the STAG account, $203.0 million
below the President’s FY2013 budget of $1.20 billion, $94.8 million less than the FY2012
appropriation of $1.09 billion. EPA categorical funds are generally distributed through multiple
grants to support various activities within a particular media program (air, water, hazardous
waste, etc.), and are generally used to support the day-to-day implementation of environmental
laws, including a range of activities such as monitoring, permitting and standard setting, training,
and other pollution control and prevention activities. These grants also assist multimedia projects
such as pollution prevention incentive grants, pesticides and toxic substances enforcement, the
tribal general assistance program, and environmental information.
Table 3 below provides a comparison of H.R. 6091 as reported with the President’s FY2013
budget request, and the three most recent fiscal years for 20 individual categorical grant programs
that generally cut across six broad categories: air and radiation, water quality, drinking water,
hazardous waste, pesticides and toxic substances, and multimedia. Relative to the FY2013
President’s request, the House committee-reported bill proposed reductions for FY2013 for nearly
all of the categorical grants, with a few exceptions. House committee-proposed reductions
generally reflected funding of these grants at FY2012 levels, with the exception of reductions for
a subset of certain grants below the FY2012 enacted level. The House committee adopted the
FY2013 request’s proposal to eliminate the grants for Beach Protection, but restored grant
funding for Radon to the FY2012 level of $8.0 million.
The Administration’s rationale for proposing to terminate funding for the Beach Protection
categorical grant for FY2013 was that non-federal agencies have the capacity to run their own
programs as a result of 10 years of this federal assistance. Congress appropriated $9.9 million for
this categorical grant for FY2012. The Administration proposed to eliminate the Radon
categorical grant, which has provided assistance to states in developing and implementing their
46
For example see the Environmental Council of States (ECOS), “The State Environmental Agencies’ Statement of
Need and Budget Proposal for EPA’s 2013 Categorical Grants STAG Budget” (State and Tribal Assistance Grants)
http://www.ecos.org/files/4482_file_ECOS_Proposal_for_EPAs_2013_STAG_Budget.pdf, and other related funding
publications at http://www.ecos.org/section/states/spending; see also a March 26, 2012, ECOS Press Release: Prospects
for Massive Cuts in Federal Funding Alarm State Environmental Agencies, Spring Meeting Discussions,
http://www.ecos.org/section/news.
Congressional Research Service
15
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
own programs to assess and mitigate radon risks for more than 20 years. The Administration
asserted that the states had developed the technical expertise and procedures to continue these
efforts without federal grant assistance.47 Under the President’s FY2013 proposal, the remaining
federal role in mitigating radon risks would have focused on interagency coordination of existing
federal housing programs that address these risks.
As indicated in Table 3, the largest reduction for categorical grants proposed in the House
committee-reported bill compared to the FY2013 request was a $100.8 million (more than 33%)
decrease below the FY2013 request (from $301.5 million to $200.7 million) for State and Local
Air Quality Management grants. The House committee-proposed FY2013 level for these grants
was also the largest decrease ($35.0 million, 15%) below the FY2012 enacted appropriations of
$235.7 million. The increase for FY2013 proposed in the President’s FY2013 request for the Air
Quality Management grants was to be used to support: permitting sources of greenhouse gas
emissions; expanded state core workload for implementing revised, more stringent Clean Air Act
(CAA) regulations; additional air monitors; and facilitation of states’ collection and review of
emission data required under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.
House committee-reported H.R. 6091 also proposed a $61.0 million (23%) reduction below the
FY2013 request for Section 106 Water Pollution Control Grants (from $265.3 million to $204.3
million). The proposed amount was $34.1 million (14%) less than the FY2012 enacted level of
$238.4 million. The Section 106 grants support efforts to prevent and develop control measures to
improve water quality and address nutrient runoff. According to the EPA FY2013 Congressional
Justification, the President’s proposed $26.9 million increase above the FY2012 levels for these
grants was to provide additional resources for: addressing nutrient loads; strengthening the state,
interstate and tribal base programs; addressing total maximum daily load (TMDL), monitoring,
and wet weather issues; and help states improve their water quality programs relating to the
management of nutrients.48 The House Appropriations Committee omitted language proposed in
the FY2013 request to authorize additional Section 106 grants for nutrient reductions (H.Rept.
112-589, p. 66).
The House committee also did not agree to the President’s proposed $28.7 million (43%) increase
(from $67.6 million to $96.4 million) for the Tribal Assistance Grant Program (GAP), and
recommended funding these grants at the FY2012 level. Citing the agency’s commitment to
tribes, the Administration’s proposed increase for the Tribal GAP for FY2013 was to enhance
program resources to further build tribal capacity and assist tribes in leveraging other EPA and
federal funding to achieve added environmental and human health protection. Other comparisons
are reflected in the table that follows.
47
For more detailed discussion of the proposed elimination of these programs and other related terminations,
reductions, see OMB’s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget of the United States: Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/ccs.pdf. See brief overview descriptions of
these and other terminations in EPA’s FY2013 Congressional Justification, Highlights of Major Budget Changes, pp.
13-19, http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/annualplan/fy2013.html#FY13budget.
48
See brief overview descriptions of these increases provided in EPA’s FY2013 Congressional Justification, Highlights
of Major Budget Changes, p. 16, http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/annualplan/fy2013.html#FY13budget.
Congressional Research Service
16
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Table 3. Appropriations for Categorical Grants within the State and Tribal Assistance
Grants (STAG) Account: FY2010-FY2012 Enacted, Proposed for FY2013 in the
President’s Budget Request and House Committee-Reported H.R. 6091
(millions of dollars)
FY2013
House
FY2012
Enacted
FY2013 Committee
P.L. 112-74 Requested H.R. 6091
FY2010
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
FY2011
Enacted
P.L. 112-10
Beaches Protection
$9.9
$9.9
$9.9
$0.0
$0.0
Brownfields
$49.5
$49.4
$49.3
$47.6
$47.6
Environmental Information
$10.0
$10.0
$10.0
$15.2
$10.0
Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance
$103.3
$103.1
$103.0
$103.4
$103.0
Lead
$14.6
$14.5
$14.5
$14.9
$14.5
Local Governments Climate Change Grants
$10.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Nonpoint Source (CWA §319)
$200.9
$175.5
$164.5
$164.8
$150.5
Pesticides Enforcement
$18.7
$18.7
$18.6
$19.1
$18.6
Pesticides Program Implementation
$13.5
$13.5
$13.1
$13.1
$13.1
Pollution Control (CWA §106)
$229.3
$238.8
$238.4
$265.3
$204.3
Monitoring Grants
$18.5
$18.5
$18.4
$18.5
$11.3
Other Activities
$210.8
$220.4
$220.0
$246.8
$193.0
Pollution Prevention
$4.9
$4.9
$4.9
$5.0
$5.0
$105.7
$105.5
$105.3
$109.7
$105.3
$8.1
$8.1
$8.0
$0.0
$8.0
$226.6
$236.1
$235.7
$301.5
$200.7
Toxic Substances Compliance
$5.1
$5.1
$5.1
$5.2
$5.1
Tribal Air Quality Management
$13.3
$13.3
$13.3
$13.6
$13.3
Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP)
$62.9
$67.7
$67.6
$96.4
$67.6
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
$10.9
$10.9
$10.9
$11.1
$10.9
Underground Storage Tanks
$2.5
$2.5
$1.5
$1.5
$1.5
Wetlands Program Development
$16.8
$16.8
$15.1
$15.2
$15.2
$1,094.9
$1,104.2
$1,088.8
$1,202.4
$994.0
Categorical Grant Program Area
Public Water System Supervisions (PWSS)
Radon
State and Local Air Quality Management
Total Categorical Grants
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2010 enacted amounts are as presented in 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). FY2011 enacted amounts are the prior-year amounts
presented by the House Appropriations Committee in its report accompanying the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2012 (H.R. 2584, H.Rept. 112-151, pp. 192-200). FY2012 enacted amounts,
and the FY2013 proposed amounts, are as presented by the House Appropriations Committee in its report
accompanying the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2013 (H.R. 6091, H.Rept.
112-589, pp. 170-177), as reported July 10, 2012. The FY2011 and FY2012 enacted amounts reflect applicable
rescissions. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
17
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Air Quality and Climate Change Issues49
Several EPA actions under the Clean Air Act (CAA), including those addressing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, hazardous air pollutants (including mercury) and particulate matter emissions,
received considerable attention, including proposed legislation, during the 112th Congress and
continued to be an area of interest among some Members in the consideration of FY2013
appropriations for EPA.50 These issues were also the subject of proposals to modify or curtail EPA
actions, during the FY201151 and FY201252 appropriations debate.
In addition to funding FY2013 levels for several program activities in Title II of the House
committee-reported bill and in the accompanying report (see Table 4 below), Title IV of H.R.
6091 as reported proposed a number of general provisions addressing EPA’s use of FY2013 funds
to support the development, implementation, or enforcement of CAA regulatory actions noted
above, as well as directives for conducting evaluations of certain activities and providing reports
to the committee. Some of these provisions were similar to general provisions included in the
FY2012 Interior appropriations law (P.L. 112-74), and a subset of those proposed during
deliberations on the FY2012 and FY2011 EPA appropriations. 53 Additionally, in lieu of certain
general provisions proposed for FY2013 in H.R. 6091 as reported, the report accompanying the
reported bill, H.Rept. 112-589, contained extensive language with regard to specific climate
change and air quality regulatory actions by EPA.
As indicated in Table C-1 in Appendix C, general provisions proposed in Title IV of the House
committee-reported bill would have prohibited the use of FY2013 appropriations for
•
issuing permits for emissions from biological processes associated with livestock
(§420);
•
requiring reporting of GHGs from manure management systems (§421);
•
regulating GHGs from new motor sources (§444);
49
(name redacted), and (name redacted), Specialists in Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and Industry
Division were primary contributors to this section.
50
See CRS Report R41563, Clean Air Issues in the 112th Congress, by (name redacted); see also CRS Report
R41561, EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?, by (name redacted) and (name redacted), for a
discussion of selected EPA regulatory actions.
51
House-passed appropriations legislation for FY2011 (H.R. 1) included several provisions that would have restricted
or prohibited use of funds for activities related to specific EPA actions under the CAA. 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).
52
Partly in response to some of the concerns raised during the debate, the FY2012 appropriations law contained general
provisions addressing EPA’s use of FY2012 funds to support the development, implementation, or enforcement of
certain Clean Air Act regulatory actions. For a more detailed discussion see CRS Report R42332, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) FY2012 Appropriations, by (name redacted), and CRS Report R41979, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) FY2012 Appropriations: Overview of Provisions in H.R. 2584 as Reported, by (name r
edacted).
53
Congress has addressed EPA’s development of CAA regulations through the appropriations process in the past—
either explicitly providing or restricting the availability of agency funds for such purposes—and these issues were
debated extensively during the FY2012 and FY2011 appropriations process. See CRS Report R42332, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) FY2012 Appropriations, by (name redacted), and CRS Report R41698, H.R. 1 Full-Year
FY2011 Continuing Resolution: Overview of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Provisions, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
18
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
•
administering or enforcing the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants regulations for asbestos for residential buildings with four or fewer
units (§446);
•
issuing or enforcing standards of performance applicable to emission of GHGs
by any new or existing electric utility generating unit (§448).
The general provisions also proposed requirements for EPA to conduct a 48-month pilot project
for the North American Emission Control Area (which requires the use of low sulfur fuels by
ships within 200 miles of the U.S. coast) jointly with the U.S. Coast Guard (§440), development
of a seventh edition of the document entitled ‘‘EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual’’ (§449),
and publication in the Federal Register of a notice to solicit comment on revising the agency’s
‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models’’ (§405).
More broadly, in its report the House committee expressed skepticism with regard to the
repackaging of existing program activities and funding new ones as “climate change programs,”
noting that in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations alone, funding for
programs identified as “climate change” nearly doubled from $192.0 million to $372.0 million
between FY2008 and FY2011.54 Citing its concern with the number of new seemingly duplicative
programs and a lack of effective coordination and communication of climate change activities,
budgets, and accomplishments across the federal government, the House committee proposed
cutting climate change funding by 29% in H.R. 6091 as reported.55 Similar to the FY2012
appropriations, the House committee-reported bill included a general provision in Title IV (§419)
that would have required the President to submit a comprehensive report to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees detailing all federal (including EPA) fiscal year obligations and
expenditures, domestic and international, for climate change programs and activities by agency
for FY2012.56
EPA is one of 17 federal agencies that have received appropriations for climate change activities
in recent fiscal years. EPA’s share of this funding is relatively small, but EPA’s policy and
regulatory roles are proportionately larger than other federal agencies and departments.
Appropriated funds for EPA’s climate change and air quality actions are distributed across several
program activities under multiple appropriations accounts. Because of variability in these
activities and modifications to account structures from year to year, it is difficult to compare the
overall combined funding included in appropriations bills with the President’s request57 and prioryear enacted appropriations. However, comparisons can be made among certain activities for
which Congress does specify a line-item in the appropriations process. Table 4 below presents a
comparison, when possible,58 of the House committee-reported bill for FY2013 with the
54
See H.Rept. 112-589, p. 9.
Ibid.
56
The provision is similar to a reporting requirement for FY2009 and FY2010 Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, and to a recurring reporting requirement that had been in existence
for nearly a decade through FY2007, under provisions in the annual appropriations bills for Foreign Operations.
57
Congress does not appropriate funding based on EPA’s strategic performance goals; however, the President’s
FY2013 request included $1.12 billion for FY2013 across multiple appropriations accounts to support the agency’s
strategic objective: “Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality,” $98.4 million above the FY2012
level of $1.03 billion (EPA’s FY2013 Congressional Justification, pp. 15-32, http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/
annualplan/fy2013.html#FY13budget).
58
It is difficult to compare the FY2013 request for all program activities with previous fiscal years’ appropriations, as
(continued...)
55
Congressional Research Service
19
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
President’s FY2013 request and FY2010 through FY2012 enacted appropriations for air quality
and climate change program activities within various EPA appropriations accounts. The program
activities included in the table are as typically presented in funding tables included in EPA’s
congressional justifications and in congressional appropriations committee reports.
As an example, the House committee-reported bill would have provided a total of $372.5 million
for FY2013 within the EPM and the S&T accounts for EPA “clean air and climate” programs,
compared to the President’s FY2013 request of $440.2 million, and the FY2012 appropriation of
$410.5 million. The House committee would not have provided requested increased funding
within the S&T account for implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,59 and would
have provided no funding in the EPM account for greenhouse gas New Source Performance
Standards.60 Also within the S&T account, the House committee-reported bill proposed $95.0
million for “Research: Air, Climate, and Energy” for FY2013, compared to FY2013 requested
$105.9 million, and FY2012 enacted $98.8 million.61 Much of the increase above the FY2012
enacted level proposed in the President’s FY2013 request was largely the result of a $27.1 million
(9.5%) increase above the FY2012 enacted amount of $286.1 million for Climate Change and Air
Quality in the EPM account. Also, as indicated in Table 4, the House committee-reported bill
proposed $256.7 million for this program area. As indicated in the table, there was variability
across the multiple program activities funded under S&T and EPM accounts when comparing
proposed FY2013 amounts with the previous fiscal years’ enacted levels.
As discussed in the previous section of this report, under the STAG account, the House
committee-reported bill proposed $200.7 million for State and Local Air Quality Management
grants, $100.8 million (33%) less than the FY2013 request of $301.5 million, and $35.0 million
(15%) less than the FY2012 enacted level of $235.7 million. Within this line item, the House
committee stated that no funds would be provided for greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting grants,
or for the GHG reporting rule within this program activity.62 States use these federal funds to help
pay the costs of operating their air pollution control programs. Much of the day-to-day operations
of these programs (i.e., monitoring, permitting, enforcement, and developing site-specific
regulations) is done by the states with federal Clean Air Act authorities delegated to them by EPA.
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) testified that the Clean Air Act (CAA)
authorizes federal grants to the states for up to 60% of the costs of running these state and local
air quality programs; however, NACAA noted that the grant amounts have declined over the last
decade, with the federal contribution falling to roughly 25% of the total cost of these programs.63
(...continued)
from year to year, EPA has sometimes modified the line-items under which funding for climate protection related
program activities is requested. For example, for FY2012 conferees accepted the Administration’s proposed budget
reorganization of certain air quality and climate protection program activities, including consolidation and
modifications of various line-items, making it difficult to compare FY2012 appropriations with FY2011 (and prior
year) appropriations.
59
H.Rept. 112-589, p. 47.
60
H.Rept. 112-589, p. 51.
61
H.Rept. 112-589, see table on pp. 170-171.
62
H.Rept. 112-589, p. 66.
63
National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) Testimony Provided to the Senate Appropriations Committee
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Regarding the FY 2013 Budget for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, April 17, 2012, http://www.4cleanair.org/Documents/
SenateTestimonyNACAAFY2013FINAL.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
20
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
According to the EPA FY2013 Congressional Justification, of the total $65.8 million requested
increase for FY2013 for these air quality management categorical grants, $39.0 million would
have supported the core state workload for implementing revised and more stringent federal
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, including the installation of additional air quality
monitors and overseeing compliance with air toxics regulations. Another $26.5 million of the
increase for these grants in the STAG account was to support states and tribes in permitting
sources of GHG emissions and implementing the federal GHG Reporting Rule.64
Also within the STAG account, the House committee proposed $30.0 million for the Diesel
Emission Reduction Grants program for FY2013, $15.0 million more than the FY2013 request
and roughly the same as FY2012. The ARRA of 2009 (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. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005)65
authorized $200.0 million annually for these grants from FY2007 through FY2011. The House
committee-reported bill also would have reinstated funding for state indoor radon (categorical)
grants at the FY2012 level of $8.0 million. As indicated previously, the FY2013 request proposed
eliminating the Radon grant program, noting that states had established the necessary technical
expertise and program funding in place to continue radon protection efforts without federal
funding.66
Although some Members and stakeholders raised concerns about the proposed funding for
various air quality programs in the President’s FY2013 budget request, much of the attention
during deliberations on the FY2013 appropriations and other recent fiscal years has focused less
on the level of funding and more on the costs and economic impacts of several EPA regulatory
actions to address air quality and climate change. For example, although relatively minor in terms
of EPA’s funding, the agency’s responses to a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision67 remain a
prominent topic of debate. This decision found greenhouse gases (GHGs) to be “air pollutants”
within the Clean Air Act’s definition of that term, and required EPA to consider, among other
things, whether GHGs endanger public health or welfare. EPA’s “endangerment finding” was the
first step in promulgating regulations to limit emissions, which led to concerns among affected
stakeholders and within Congress about the potential costs of compliance and the economic
impacts of such regulations.
64
EPA’s FY2013 Congressional Justification, “Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality,” pp. 1516 (pdf pp. 23-24), http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/annualplan/fy2013.html#FY13budget.
65
Energy Policy Act of 2005, P.L. 109-58, Title VII, Subtitle G.
66
An additional reduction of $1.7 million (43.6%) for other EPA radon program activities was proposed in the FY2013
request within the EPM account, from $3.9 million enacted for FY2012 to $2.2 million requested for FY2013. See
references in EPA’s FY2013 Congressional Justification, pp.15-16, 20-21, 777-778 (http://www.epa.gov/
planandbudget/annualplan/fy2013.html#FY13budget).
67
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).
Congressional Research Service
21
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Table 4. Appropriations for Selected EPA Air Quality Research and Implementation
Activities by Account: FY2010-FY2012 Enacted, Proposed for FY2013 in the
President’s Budget Request and House Committee-Reported H.R. 6091
(millions of dollars)
Account/Program Area
FY2010
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
FY2013
House
FY2011
FY2012
Enacted
Enacted
Committee
FY2013
P.L. 112-10 P.L. 112-74 Requested H.R. 6091
Science and Technology Account
Clean Air and Climate
—
—
$124.4
$127.1
$115.8
Clean Air Allowance Trading Program
—
—
$9.1
$9.8
—
Climate Protection Program
—
—
$16.3
$7.8
$7.8
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
—
—
$7.1
$7.6
—
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
—
—
$0.0
$0.0
—
Federal Vehicle & Fuels Standards & Certification
—
—
$91.9
$101.9
$91.9
Indoor Air and Radiation
$1.2
$1.3
$6.8
$6.7
$6.7
Indoor Air: Radon Program
—
—
$0.2
$0.0
—
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
—
—
$0.4
$0.4
—
Radiation: Protection
—
—
$2.1
$2.1
—
Radiation: Response Preparedness
—
—
$4.1
$4.2
—
—
—
Research: Air, Climate and Energy
—
—
$98.8
$105.9
$95.0
Global Change
—
—
$18.3
$20.3
$15.8
Clean Air
—
—
$78.5
$82.8
$77.2
Other Activities
—
—
$2.0
$2.6
Air Toxics and Quality
$121.9
$120.5
—
—
—
Climate Protection Program
$19.8
$16.8
—
—
—
Research: Clean Air
$102.7
$102.4
—
—
—
Research: Global Change
$20.9
—
—
—
—
Clean Air and Climate
—
—
$286.1
$313.2
$256.7
Clean Air Allowance Trading Program
—
—
$20.8
$20.9
—
Climate Protection Program:
$113.0
$107.5
$99.5
$108.0
$84.9
- Climate Protection Program: Energy STAR
$52.6
—
$49.7
$53.9
$48.1
- Climate Protection Program: Methane to Markets
$4.6
—
$5.0
$4.9
—
- Climate Protection Program: Greenhouse Gas Registry
$16.7
—
$15.8
$18.7
$6.4
- Climate Protection Program: Other Activities
$39.1
—
$29.0
$30.5
—
—
—
$27.3
$34.1
$20.6
Environmental Programs and Management
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
Congressional Research Service
22
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Account/Program Area
FY2010
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
FY2013
FY2011
FY2012
House
Enacted
Enacted
FY2013
Committee
P.L. 112-10 P.L. 112-74 Requested H.R. 6091
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
—
—
$123.5
$134.8
$115.3
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
—
—
$0.0
$0.0
—
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
—
—
$5.6
$5.6
—
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
—
—
$9.5
$9.7
—
Indoor Air and Radiation
$26.6
$25.9
$33.7
$32.4
$32.4
Indoor Air: Radon Program
—
—
$3.9
$2.2
—
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
—
—
$17.2
$17.4
—
Radiation: Protection
—
—
$9.6
$9.8
—
Radiation: Response Preparedness
—
—
$3.0
$3.1
—
$202.2
$207.3
—
—
—
—
$2.5
$2.5
$2.6
$2.5
$2.6
—
—
—
—
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grants
(Energy Policy Act)
$60.0
$49.9
$30.0
$15.0
$30.0
Local Government Climate Change Grants
$10.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
—
Targeted Airshed Grants
$20.0
$0.0
—
—
—
Radon
$8.1
$8.1
$8.0
$0.0
$8.0
State & Local Air Quality Management Grants
$226.6
$236.1
$235.7
$301.5
$200.7
Tribal Air Quality Management Grants
$13.3
$13.3
$13.3
$13.6
$13.3
Air Toxics and Quality
Hazardous Substance Superfund Account
Indoor Air and Radiation: Radiation Protection
Air Toxics and Quality
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Account
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2010 enacted amounts are as presented in 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). FY2011 enacted amounts are the prior-year amounts
presented by the House Appropriations Committee in its report accompanying the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2012 (H.R. 2584, H.Rept. 112-151, pp. 192-200), and supplemental
information provided to CRS by the House Appropriations Committee. FY2012 enacted amounts, and the
FY2013 proposed amounts, are as presented by the House Appropriations Committee in its report
accompanying the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2013 (H.R. 6091, H.Rept.
112-589, pp. 170-177), as reported July 10, 2012. The FY2011 and FY2012 enacted amounts reflect applicable
rescissions. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Note: The “—” denoted in the table indicates that comparable data are unavailable. It is difficult to compare the
FY2013 request and FY2012 enacted amounts for all program activities with previous fiscal years’ appropriations
because from year to year EPA has sometimes modified the line-items under which funding for climate
protection related program activities is requested. For FY2012, the conferees accepted the Administration’s
proposed budget reorganization of certain air quality and climate protection program activities, including
consolidation and modifications of various line-items, making it difficult to compare FY2012 appropriations with
FY2011 (and prior year) appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
23
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Cleanup of Superfund Sites68
The Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) account supports the assessment and cleanup of
sites contaminated from the release of hazardous substances. EPA carries out these activities
under the Superfund program. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) authorized this program, and established the Superfund Trust
Fund to finance discretionary appropriations to fund it.69 As reported by the House Appropriations
Committee, H.R. 6091 proposed a total of $1.16 billion for the Superfund account in FY2013.
The committee’s recommendation was $11.5 million (1%) less than the President’s FY2013
request of nearly $1.18 billion, and $48.9 million (4%) less than the FY2012 enacted
appropriation of $1.21 billion. These proposed amounts replicated an overall downward funding
trend since FY2010. (See Table 5.) For the previous decade, annual funding levels for the
Superfund account had remained fairly steady, averaging approximately $1.25 billion annually.70
However, some have observed that the funding levels declined during this period when
accounting for the effects of inflation.
As amended, CERCLA authorizes EPA’s Superfund program to clean up sites that are among the
nation’s most hazardous and to enforce the liability of parties who are responsible for the cleanup
costs.71 Many states also have developed their own cleanup programs to address contaminated
sites that are not pursued at the federal level. These state programs complement federal cleanup
efforts. At sites that are addressed under the federal Superfund program, EPA first attempts to
identify the responsible parties to enforce their liability for the cleanup costs. Sites financed by
the responsible parties do not rely upon Superfund appropriations, except for situations in which
EPA may use the appropriations up front and later recover the costs from the responsible parties.
If the responsible parties cannot be found or do not have the ability to pay, EPA is authorized to
use Superfund appropriations to pay for the cleanup of a site under a cost-share agreement with
the state in which the site is located.72 Sites at which there are no viable parties to assume
responsibility for the cleanup are referred to as “orphan” sites.
The use of Superfund appropriations has focused primarily on cleaning up contamination from
the release of hazardous substances at high-risk sites that EPA has placed on the National
Priorities List (NPL).73 The cleanup of federal facilities on the NPL is funded apart from the
Superfund program by the federal agencies that administer those facilities.74 Annual funding for
the cleanup of all contaminated federal facilities combined exceeds EPA’s Superfund
68
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialis t in Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
69
42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq.
70
FY2009 was an exception to this trend, with $600.0 million in supplemental funds provided in ARRA (P.L. 111-5).
71
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).
72
State cost-share requirements apply only to the performance of long-term Remedial actions, but not to short-term
Removal actions to address more imminent hazards and emergency situations.
73
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/status.htm. CERCLA also authorizes EPA to use
Superfund appropriations for performing short-term Removal actions at sites not listed on the NPL.
74
The use of cleanup appropriations at federal facilities has been limited to the performance of the cleanup itself. The
Judgment Fund administered by the U.S. Treasury has been the source of monies for the payment of claims for cleanup
liability that may be submitted against the United States at sites where a federal agency is a liable party.
Congressional Research Service
24
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
appropriations by several billion dollars. Although Superfund appropriations are not eligible to
pay for the cleanup of federal facilities, EPA oversees their cleanup through the Superfund
program in conjunction with the states in which the facilities are located.
The Superfund account also funds EPA’s homeland security responsibilities to prepare for the
federal response to incidents that may involve the intentional release of hazardous substances,
EPA’s operational and administrative expenses in carrying out the Superfund program, and EPA’s
enforcement of cleanup liability under CERCLA. Enforcement is a core tenet of the statute
intended to ensure that the responsible parties pay for the cleanup of contamination whenever
possible, in order to focus the use of Superfund appropriations at orphan sites. Most of the
decrease that the House Appropriations Committee recommended for the Superfund account in
FY2013 would be for EPA’s operational and administrative expenses, and the enforcement of
cleanup liability. Although a decrease in the enforcement budget may yield savings in the near
term, the need for appropriations possibly could rise in the future if less enforcement were to
result in fewer parties contributing to cleanup costs, and more of the costs being shifted to the
taxpayer. Although the committee proposed an overall decrease for the Superfund account, it
recommended an increase above the President’s FY2013 request for long-term Remedial actions
to clean up sites on the NPL, but at a lower funding level than enacted for FY2012.
Historically, funding within the Superfund account also has been transferred to EPA’s Science and
Technology account for the research and development of cleanup technologies, and to EPA’s
Office of Inspector General account for independent auditing, evaluation, and investigation of the
Superfund program. In past years, annual appropriations acts have included statutory language
authorizing these transfers. The House Appropriations Committee’s report on H.R. 6091
recommended funding for these activities within the Superfund account at the same level as
enacted for FY2012. However, the committee did not include explicit statutory authority in the
bill itself to transfer these funds to the Science and Technology account and the Office of
Inspector General account, a departure from past appropriations acts. The committee continued to
present the funding levels as transfers in the tables accompanying its report, which would appear
to presume that EPA would execute the transfers under some other authority.75 Generally,
transfers of appropriations from one account to another must be authorized in law.76
Table 5 presents the House Appropriations Committee’s proposed funding levels for the
Superfund account in FY2013 by major program area, compared to the President’s FY2013
request, and appropriations enacted from FY2010 through FY2012. Transfers to the Science and
Technology account and the Office of Inspector General account are presented consistent with the
committee’s report on H.R. 6091.
75
H.Rept. 112-589, pp. 171, 173, and 174.
31 U.S.C. §1532. For further discussion of appropriations transfer authority, see Government Accountability Office,
Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Third Edition, Volume I, GAO-04-261SP, January 2004, p. 2-24, available
on GAO’s website: http://www.gao.gov/legal/redbook/redbook.html.
76
Congressional Research Service
25
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Table 5. Appropriations for the Hazardous Substance Superfund Account:
FY2010-FY2012 Enacted, and Proposed for FY2013 in the President’s
Budget Request and House Committee-Reported H.R. 6091
(millions of dollars)
FY2010
Enacted
P.L. 11188
FY2011
Enacted
P.L. 11210
FY2012
Enacted
P.L. 11274
FY2013
President’s
Request
FY2013
House
Committee
H.R. 6091
Remedial
$605.0
$605.4
$565.0
$531.8
$546.8
Emergency Response and Removal
$202.8
$200.5
$189.6
$188.5
$188.5
Federal Facilities (Oversight)
$32.2
$31.1
$26.2
$26.8
$26.2
Enforcement
$196.0
$191.6
$186.7
$184.4
$169.4
Operations and Administration
$137.9
$136.6
$135.8
$140.4
$130.8
Homeland Security
$56.6
$41.7
$41.8
$41.9
$41.9
Other Program Areas
$78.0
$74.0
$68.7
$62.6
$61.3
$1,308.5
$1,280.9
$1,213.8
$1,176.4
$1,164.9
Transfer to Science and Technology
-$26.8
-$26.8
-$23.0
-$23.2
-$23.0
Transfer to Office of Inspector General
-$10.0
-$10.0
-$9.9
-$10.9
-$9.9
Superfund Account After Transfersa
$1,271.7
$1,244.1
$1,180.9
$1,142.3
$1,132.0
Program Area and Transfers to
Other EPA Accounts
Total Superfund Account
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2010 enacted amounts are as presented in 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). FY2011 enacted amounts are the prior-year amounts presented by the
House Appropriations Committee in its report accompanying the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2012 (H.R. 2584, H.Rept. 112-151, pp. 192-200). FY2012 enacted amounts, and the FY2013
proposed amounts, are as presented by the House Appropriations Committee in its report accompanying the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2013 (H.R. 6091, H.Rept. 112-589, pp. 170-177).
FY2011 and FY2012 enacted amounts reflect applicable rescissions. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
a.
Although H.R. 6091, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee, did not include explicit
statutory authority within the Superfund account to transfer funds to the Science and Technology account
and the Office of Inspector General account, the committee’s report on the bill did recommend funding
within the Superfund account for the activities that had been supported by these transfers in past years
(Research, and Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations). In its report, the committee continued to present
these amounts as transfers, which would appear to presume that EPA would have some other authority to
execute the transfers, as transfers among accounts generally must be authorized in law (31 U.S.C. §1532).
The following sections discuss selected issues that have received more prominent attention in the
appropriations and budget debate, including the adequacy of funding for long-term Remedial
actions at NPL sites, overall cleanup progress, the development of Superfund financial
responsibility requirements, the management of private settlement funds in Superfund Special
Accounts, the use of Superfund Alternative agreements in lieu of listing sites on the NPL, and
proposals to reinstate Superfund taxes to augment resources available for appropriation.
Remedial Projects
CERCLA authorizes two types of cleanup actions at individual sites. Remedial actions are
intended to address long-term risks to human health and the environment, whereas Removal
actions are intended to address more imminent hazards or emergency situations. In the Superfund
cleanup process, Removal actions may precede Remedial actions to stabilize site conditions while
Congressional Research Service
26
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Remedial actions are developed and constructed. Only sites listed on the NPL are eligible for
Superfund appropriations to pay for Remedial actions, whereas Removal actions may be funded
with Superfund appropriations regardless of whether a site is listed on the NPL.77 The pace of
long-term cleanup efforts at many sites has raised concerns among Members of Congress, states,
and affected communities about the adequacy of funding for Remedial projects.
The House Appropriations Committee proposed $546.8 million for Remedial projects in FY2013,
an increase of $15.0 million above the President’s request of $531.8 million, but $18.2 million
less than the FY2012 enacted appropriation of $565.0 million. In its report on H.R. 6091, the
committee stated its concern about the President’s requested “deep cuts” for Remedial projects
while requesting “marginal reductions or increases” for other activities funded within the
Superfund account, and stated its position that the President’s request reflects a “wrong
distribution of funds for the Superfund account.”78 The House Appropriations Committee
proposed the smaller $1.1 million reduction that the President had requested for Removal
projects, from $189.6 million enacted for FY2012 to $188.5 million for FY2013. The President
had proposed a smaller reduction for Removal projects to focus priorities on near-term risks, as
opposed to Remedial projects that address long-term risks.
EPA had acknowledged in its FY2013 Congressional Justification that the requested decrease for
Remedial projects could have an impact on the pace of long-term cleanup efforts.79 EPA had
indicated that available funding would be prioritized for continuing ongoing Remedial Projects,
with no new construction projects planned in FY2013. However, new Remedial projects still
could begin at sites financed by the responsible parties, which do not rely on Superfund
appropriations. Although EPA had cited federal budgetary constraints as a reason for the proposed
decrease for Remedial projects, the agency indicated at the same time that state budgetary
constraints have resulted in some sites being deferred to the federal Superfund program.80 Federal
involvement at these sites could increase demands for appropriations. EPA emphasized that it
would continue its policy of enforcing the liability of responsible parties first to reserve available
appropriations for orphan sites.
Cleanup Progress
The long-standing debate over the adequacy 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 overall cleanup progress at individual sites over the life of the
program. This measure generally indicates that all long-term cleanup remedies are in place and
operating as intended, after which point operation and maintenance of the remedies may continue
for years, or even decades in some instances.81 The annual number of construction completions
has been declining for more than a decade, from a high of 88 in FY1997 to a low of 18 in
FY2010, and increasing to 22 in FY2011.82 EPA has estimated 22 construction completions again
77
40 C.F.R. §300.425(b).
H.Rept. 112-589, p. 61.
79
See EPA’s FY2013 Congressional Justification, p. 40.
80
See EPA’s FY2013 Congressional Justification, p. 679.
81
For information on the use of construction completion as a measure of cleanup progress at individual sites, see EPA’s
Superfund program website: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/ccl.htm.
82
The number of construction completions from FY1995 through FY2011, and so far in FY2012, is available on EPA’s
Superfund program website: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplfy.htm.
78
Congressional Research Service
27
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
in FY2012, and 19 in FY2013 based on the President’s budget request. This overall downward
trend since the late 1990s has raised questions as to whether annual appropriations for the
Superfund program have been adequate to maintain consistent progress to ensure protection of
human health and the environment. In its report on H.R. 6091, the House Appropriations
Committee commented on EPA’s projected reduction in the number of construction completions
and other performance measures for FY2013. The committee stated its position that the slowed
pace is “wrong policy for addressing the nation’s most contaminated hazardous waste sites.”83
The committee cited this concern in recommending a higher level of funding for Remedial
projects than the President had requested.
Although there has been much focus on the impacts of funding on the pace of cleanup, funding
alone is not the sole factor that determines how quickly cleanup may proceed. The scope and
complexity of cleanup challenges at individual sites, and technological capabilities, can be
significant factors as well. Consequently, greater time may be required to complete construction
at larger and more complex sites. Furthermore, measuring the completion of construction on a
site-wide basis alone does not reflect progress made among individual projects. In some cases, the
construction of nearly all of the individual projects at a site may be complete, but the site is not
designated as construction complete until all projects are completed.84
Financial Responsibility Requirements
As reported by the House Appropriations Committee, Section 447 of H.R. 6091 would have
prohibited EPA from using any funds that would be provided in that bill for the agency to
“develop, propose, finalize, implement, enforce, or administer” Superfund financial responsibility
requirements for facilities that manage hazardous substances. Section 108(b) of CERCLA
directed the President to identify the initial classes of facilities that would be subject to these
requirements no later than December 11, 1983, and to promulgate the requirements no earlier
than December 11, 1985. Section 108(b) stated that the purpose of the requirements is for
facilities to “establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility consistent with the degree
and duration of risk associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal
of hazardous substances.”85 Implementation of Section 108(b) is delegated to EPA by executive
order, with the exception of transportation facilities delegated to the Department of Transportation
(DOT).86
The lack of action by EPA and DOT in identifying classes of facilities and promulgating financial
responsibility requirements for those classes was challenged by environmental groups in a citizen
suit. In February 2009, the court found that the groups had shown standing to sue EPA, but not
DOT, and held that under CERCLA, EPA had a non-discretionary duty to identify classes of
facilities for establishing financial responsibility requirements by the act’s deadline. 87 The court
therefore ordered EPA to identify those classes. In August 2009, the court acknowledged that EPA
had by then fulfilled its obligation to identify the initial classes of facilities (specifically hardrock
83
H.Rept. 112-589, p. 61.
EPA has begun to separately track the number of Remedial projects completed at each site to reflect progress toward
achieving construction completion on a site-wide basis.
85
42 U.S.C. §9608(b).
86
Executive Order 12580, Superfund Implementation, January 23, 1987, 52 Federal Register 2923.
87
Sierra Club v. Johnson, 2009 Westlaw 482248 (N.D. Cal. February 25, 2009).
84
Congressional Research Service
28
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
mining facilities), albeit years later than the statutory deadline of December 11, 1983.88 The court
held, however, that plaintiffs’ remaining claim, seeking an order that EPA take the next step of
promulgating financial responsibility requirements, had to be rejected. The absence of a statutory
deadline for such promulgation, combined with legislative history, led the court to view this
second step as not being a non-discretionary duty of EPA (and instead a discretionary duty with
respect to the timing of promulgation)—hence unenforceable by citizen suit. EPA has since
identified additional classes of facilities, but has not yet proposed the actual requirements for any
of these facilities to demonstrate financial responsibility.89
In its report on H.R. 6091, the House Appropriations Committee stated its position that no
funding should be provided to develop or implement Superfund financial responsibility
requirements, at least until EPA completes an analysis of the capacity of the financial and credit
markets to provide the necessary instruments for facilities to demonstrate their financial
responsibility.90 The committee noted its concern that proceeding with new financial
responsibility requirements under current economic conditions may impose an undue burden on
the affected industries. As a practical matter, some also have questioned whether existing
financial responsibility requirements promulgated under other statutes may lessen the need for
similar requirements under CERCLA.91 Still, the adequacy of existing requirements continues to
be an issue among those concerned about the capability of facility owners and operators to fulfill
their potential liability under CERCLA, if a release of hazardous substances were to occur.
Supporters of Superfund financial responsibility requirements contend that the burden of cleanup
costs could be shifted to the federal and state taxpayer if responsible parties are incapable of
fulfilling their liability.
Special Accounts
Fiscal budgetary constraints also have focused greater attention on EPA’s management of private
settlement funds obtained from responsible parties, which augment discretionary Superfund
appropriations. These private settlement funds are deposited into site-specific Special Accounts
within the Superfund Trust Fund. Section 122(b)(3) of CERCLA authorizes EPA to retain these
funds and directly use them to finance the cleanup of the sites covered under the settlements,
without being subject to discretionary appropriations.92 Once all planned future work is
completed at a site, EPA may “reclassify” the funds remaining in a “Special Account” to pay for
work needed at other sites, or may transfer the remaining funds to the general portion of the
Superfund Trust Fund to be made available for discretionary appropriations.
In its FY2013 Congressional Justification, EPA reported that it had deposited a total of $3.7
billion in private settlement funds into site-specific Special Accounts over time, and that a total of
88
Sierra Club v. Johnson, 2009 Westlaw 2413094 (N.D. Cal. August 5, 2009).
For information on the classes of facilities that EPA has identified and the status of these regulatory developments,
see EPA’s Superfund program website: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/financialresponsibility.
90
See H.Rept. 112-589, p. 61-62.
91
For example, EPA has established financial responsibility requirements under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act for facilities that store, treat, or dispose of hazardous wastes. The Bureau of Land Management also has
established financial responsibility requirements under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act for the
reclamation of hardrock mining operations conducted on federal public lands. States also may establish similar
financial responsibility requirements under their own laws.
92
42 U.S.C. §9622(b)(3).
89
Congressional Research Service
29
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
$1.8 billion remained available for obligation in 992 special accounts as of the end of FY2011.93
Although this remaining balance is greater than the level of annual discretionary Superfund
appropriations, Special Account funds are intended to finance all future cleanup work planned at
the sites covered under the settlements over the long term. As such, this remaining balance does
not represent the level of annual funding available to EPA from Special Accounts. At some sites,
Special Account funds may be expended over several years, or even decades in some cases, to
complete construction of all cleanup remedies and operate and maintain them over the long term.
In its report on H.R. 6091, the House Appropriations Committee acknowledged the progress that
EPA has made in developing centralized procedures to manage Special Account funds more
effectively.94 However, the committee still expressed its concern about the pace at which the $1.8
billion available balance in Special Accounts may be spent in the future. In its report, the
committee directed EPA to submit a report within 120 days of enactment examining the “practical
and legal implications” of reprioritizing Special Account funds currently allocated for long-term
future work, and identifying alternative uses of the funds to address near-term risks at other
sites.95
The use of Special Account funds is governed by the site-specific settlements under which the
responsible parties paid the funds to EPA. The authority of EPA to reprioritize and reallocate
these funds among other sites would depend on the terms and conditions of the individual
settlements. As such, it should be emphasized that Special Account funds are not subject to
agency reprogramming authorities in the same manner as discretionary appropriations.
Furthermore, if Special Account funds for long-term work were reallocated and spent for other
purposes, there could be a need for appropriations in later years to replace the reallocated funds.
Otherwise, EPA may not be able to perform that work when needed to ensure the protection of
human health and the environment in accordance with CERCLA.
Superfund Alternative Agreements
In its report on H.R. 6091, the House Appropriations Committee expressed interest in EPA’s use
of Superfund Alternative agreements at some sites, in lieu of EPA listing them on the NPL. Under
these agreements, EPA may elect not to pursue the listing of an otherwise eligible site, if the
responsible party voluntarily enters into a settlement agreement to perform the cleanup. These
agreements are intended to address the cleanup liability of the parties and to free up Superfund
appropriations for other sites. The avoidance of an NPL listing may encourage a responsible party
to settle if that party is concerned about its association with the site. Some communities also may
wish to avoid the perceived stigma of an NPL listing because of possible impacts on property
values or economic development.
In its report on H.R. 6091, the House Appropriations Committee included a directive to EPA to
continue reporting annually on the use of Superfund Alternative agreements by EPA Region.96 In
its FY2013 Congressional Justification, EPA reported that there were 51 Superfund Alternative
93
See EPA’s FY2013 Congressional Justification, p. 1046.
See Government Accountability Office, Superfund: Status of EPA’s Efforts to Improve Its Management and
Oversight of Special Accounts, GAO-12-109, January 2012, available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-109.
95
H.Rept. 112-589, p. 62.
96
H.Rept. 112-589, p. 62.
94
Congressional Research Service
30
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
agreements covering 67 sites.97 (The number of agreements is smaller than the number of sites
because some agreements cover multiple sites). The number of sites covered under these
alternative agreements is a relatively small fraction of the more than 1,600 sites that EPA has
listed on the NPL historically, including federal facilities and deleted sites.
If the responsible parties are willing to perform the cleanup, listing a site on the NPL is not
essential from a funding standpoint because Superfund appropriations are not needed. As noted
earlier, a site must be listed on the NPL to be eligible for Superfund appropriations to pay for the
long-term Remedial actions. CERCLA generally authorizes EPA to enter into settlements with
responsible parties to allow them to perform the cleanup, and settlements are used at many NPL
sites to address cleanup liability. The difference in the use of settlements under the Superfund
Alternative approach is that EPA elects not to pursue the listing of the site on the NPL, as long as
the responsible party performs the cleanup satisfactorily in accordance with the agreement.
Sites cleaned up under these agreements are not strictly precluded from being listed on the NPL,
but EPA’s expectation is that listing them will not be necessary to achieve the cleanup. The
performance of the cleanup itself is subject to the same process under CERCLA as those that are
listed on the NPL. As such, this approach is an alternative to listing a site on the NPL, but is not
an alternative to the Superfund cleanup process. EPA asserts that the Superfund Alternative
approach has the potential to save the time and resources associated with listing a site on the
NPL, contingent upon the responsible parties performing the cleanup satisfactorily.98 However,
some have expressed concern that the lack of an NPL listing may reduce public transparency and
awareness of potential hazards at these sites.
Proposed Reinstatement of Superfund Taxes
Interest in greater resources to enhance cleanup progress also 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 Superfund Trust Fund.
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.99
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
97
See EPA’s FY2013 Congressional Justification, p. 679. For a list of each site with a Superfund Alternative
agreement in place by EPA Region, see EPA’s Superfund program website: http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/cleanup/
superfund/saa-sites.html.
98
For additional information on the objectives and criteria for the use of Superfund Alternative agreements, see EPA’s
Superfund program website: http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/cleanup/superfund/saa.html.
99
Congress now finances the Superfund Trust Fund mostly with general Treasury revenues, but other sources continue
to contribute 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 responsible parties. Although the dedicated industry
taxes have expired, industry has continued to contribute revenues that support the Superfund Trust Fund through
general Treasury revenues, in the form of corporate income taxes, along with individual income taxes and
miscellaneous receipts.
Congressional Research Service
31
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
parties who did not cause or contribute to contamination.100 Reinstatement of the taxes would be
subject to the enactment of reauthorizing legislation. The President’s FY2013 budget request
included a legislative proposal to reinstate Superfund taxes through 2022 and estimated total
revenues of nearly $21 billion over that period.101 At least four bills to reauthorize Superfund
taxes were introduced in the 112th Congress to date: H.R. 1596, H.R. 1634, H.R. 3638 (Subtitle G
of Title II), and S. 461.
Brownfields102
EPA also administers another cleanup program to provide financial assistance to state, local, and
tribal governmental entities for certain types of sites, referred to as “brownfields.” Sites eligible
for this assistance tend to be sites where the known or suspected presence of contamination may
present an impediment to economic development, but where the risks generally are not high
enough for the site to be addressed under the Superfund program or other related cleanup
authorities. Consistent with liability under CERCLA, responsible parties at these brownfields
sites are not eligible for this federal financial assistance, as they are to be held accountable for the
cleanup costs. Accordingly, the Brownfields program focuses on providing federal financial
assistance for “orphan” sites at which the potential need for cleanup remains unaddressed.103
EPA’s Brownfields program awards two different categories of grants, one competitive and one
formula-based. Section 104(k) of CERCLA authorizes EPA to award competitive grants to state,
local, and tribal governmental entities for the assessment and remediation (i.e., cleanup) of
eligible brownfields sites, job training for cleanup workers, and technical assistance.104 Section
128 authorizes EPA to award formula-based grants to help states and tribes enhance their own
cleanup programs. These grants are funded within the STAG account, whereas EPA’s expenses to
administer the Brownfields program are funded within the EPM account.
In reporting H.R. 6091, the House Appropriations Committee proposed a total of $131.2 million
within the STAG and EPM accounts combined for EPA’s Brownfields program, $35.3 million less
than the President’s FY2013 request of $166.5 million, and $36.6 million less than the FY2012
enacted appropriation of $167.8 million. The committee’s proposed decrease is attributed to a
36% reduction below the President’s request for Brownfields competitive grants, and a 37%
reduction below the FY2012 enacted appropriation. In proposing this decrease, the committee did
note its support for “the continued work of the Brownfields program, but at a reduced rate.”105
The committee also included language within its reported bill that would have prohibited EPA
from using more than 25% of the Section 104(k) grant funds to address petroleum sites. Under
100
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).
101
OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government for FY2013, “Analytical Perspectives,” p. 206 and p. 219.
102
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialis t in Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
103
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).
104
Nonprofit organizations also may be eligible for site-specific remediation (i.e., cleanup) grants, subject to a
determination by EPA based on certain statutory criteria.
105
H.Rept. 112-589, p. 65.
Congressional Research Service
32
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
existing law, Section 104(k) requires that 25% of these funds be set aside for petroleum sites, but
does not explicitly prohibit EPA from allocating a higher percentage.
Table 6 presents appropriations for EPA’s Brownfields program proposed for FY2013 in H.R.
6091, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee, compared to the President’s FY2013
request, and appropriations enacted from FY2010 through FY2012. These amounts are presented
by EPA account for the competitive and formula grants awarded under the program, and EPA’s
expenses to administer the program.
Table 6. Appropriations for EPA’s Brownfields Program:
FY2010-FY2012 Enacted, and Proposed for FY2013 in the President’s Budget
Request and House Committee-Reported H.R. 6091
(millions of dollars)
FY2010
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
FY2011
Enacted
P.L. 112-10
FY2012
Enacted
P.L. 112-74
FY2013
President’s
Request
FY2013
House
Committee
H.R. 6091
Section 104(k) Competitive Project
Grantsa
$100.0
$99.8
$94.8
$93.3
$60.0
Section 128 Categorical Grants to
States and Tribesb
$49.5
$49.4
$49.3
$47.6
$47.6
Brownfields STAG Grant Total
$149.5
$149.2
$144.1
$140.9
$107.6
EPA Administrative Expenses
$23.9
$23.7
$23.6
$25.7
$23.6
Brownfields Program Total
$173.4
$172.9
$167.8
$166.5
$131.2
Account/ Program Area
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Environmental Programs and
Management
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2010 enacted amounts are as presented in 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). FY2011 enacted amounts are the prior-year amounts
presented by the House Appropriations Committee in its report accompanying the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2012 (H.R. 2584, H.Rept. 112-151, pp. 192-200). FY2012 enacted amounts,
and the FY2013 proposed amounts, are as presented by the House Appropriations Committee in its report
accompanying the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2013 (H.R. 6091, H.Rept.
112-589, pp. 170-177). FY2011 and FY2012 enacted amounts reflect applicable rescissions. Numbers may not
add due to rounding.
a.
Section 104(k) of CERCLA authorizes EPA to award competitive grants to eligible entities for the
assessment or remediation (i.e., cleanup) of brownfields to prepare them for redevelopment, job training
for cleanup workers, and technical assistance.
b.
Section 128 of CERCLA authorizes EPA to award grants to states and tribes on a formula basis to establish
or enhance their own cleanup programs.
Congressional Research Service
33
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Program106
As indicated in Table 7 below, House committee-reported H.R. 6091 proposed $104.1 million for
EPA from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund, the same as the President’s
FY2013 request and roughly the same as the FY2012 level, but less than the enacted amounts for
the previous two fiscal years. These trust fund monies are used by states and EPA to implement
the LUST corrective action and the underground storage tank (UST) leak prevention programs. In
addition to the $104.1 million from the trust fund for these activities the House committeereported bill also proposed $12.3 million for FY2013 within the EPM account to support EPA
staff and extramural expenses used for preventing releases from USTs,107 the same as the FY2013
request, but slightly less than the FY2012 level. An additional $1.5 million, the same as requested
and nearly the same as the previous fiscal year, was proposed within the STAG account for
categorical grants to support state implementation of certain other UST leak prevention and
detection regulations that are not eligible for LUST trust fund money.
Congress established the LUST Trust Fund to provide a source of funds for EPA and states to
conduct cleanups where no responsible party has been identified, where a responsible party fails
to comply with a cleanup order, in the event of an emergency, and to take cost recovery actions
against parties. EPA and states have been successful in getting responsible parties to perform most
cleanups, and historically, states have used the bulk of their annual LUST Trust Fund grant to
oversee and enforce corrective actions performed by UST owners and operators.108 The trust fund
is supported by a 0.1 cent-per-gallon motor fuels tax and had a balance of $3.33 billion as of the
beginning of FY2012.109
EPA and the states (through cooperative agreements) use appropriated LUST funds primarily to
oversee and enforce LUST cleanup activities conducted by responsible parties. Funds also are
used to take emergency actions to respond to petroleum releases that may present more
immediate risks, clean up abandoned tank sites, and pursue cost recovery actions against the
responsible parties.110
Since the program began, the frequency and severity of releases from USTs have declined
markedly, as regulations intended to prevent and detect releases have been developed and
enforced over time and as progress has been made in responding to known releases. Through
106
This section was written by (name redacted), Specialistin Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division. For further discussion, CRS Report RS21201, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (USTs):
Prevention and Cleanup, by (name redacted).
107
EPA is developing regulations to update existing UST requirements and add new requirements for secondary
containment and operator training as needed to implement provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. See 76 Federal
Register 71708, November 18, 2011.
108
As amended, Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. §6991-6991m) authorizes the use of the LUST
Trust Fund.
109
Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2013 Budget of the U.S. Government, Appendix, February 13, 2012,
p. 1202, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/epa.pdf.
110
The Senate surface transportation reauthorization bill (S. 1813, MAP-21) would transfer $3.0 billion from the LUST
trust fund into the highway trust fund in FY2012, and one-third of future fund receipts. The bill would also extend the
LUST trust fund taxing authority through September 30, 2013. See CRS Report R42445, Surface Transportation
Reauthorization Legislation in the 112th Congress: MAP-21, H.R. 7, and H.R. 4348—Major Provisions, coordinated by
(name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
34
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
FY2011, cleanup had been initiated or completed at 82.5% of the roughly 501,000 confirmed
release sites, while a backlog of some 88,000 contaminated sites remained.111
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005, P.L. 109-58) expanded the leak prevention
provisions in the UST regulatory program, imposed new responsibilities on the states and EPA,
such as requiring states to inspect all tanks every three years. EPAct also broadened the
authorized uses of the LUST Trust Fund to support state implementation of the new leak
prevention and detection 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 2005, the UST program had
been supported entirely from general revenues. As noted above, a relatively small portion of the
total UST program funding is now derived from general revenues.
Program funding has posed a perennial issue. The LUST Trust Fund balance has grown annually
as appropriations from the trust fund have remained lower than annual tax receipts and interest
earned on the unexpended balance of the fund. Whether or not Congress should increase
appropriations from the trust fund to support state leak prevention and cleanup programs has been
an issue among the states. States note both the backlog of sites needing remediation and the
increased need for resources to comply with the additional UST leak prevention requirements
added by EPAct 2005.
Although substantial progress has been made in responding to known releases, 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, delivery and dispensing infrastructure, generally. EISA
requires a substantially increasing use of biofuels each year, and blending ethanol into gasoline is
the least-cost and most available option thus far.112 Most storage tanks are not designed to account
for the potential effects of blends of ethanol above 10% by volume (E10) on the structural
integrity of the tanks over time. EPA estimates that half of 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 would occur, potentially contaminating groundwater at some sites
and possibly placing more demands on state programs and the LUST Trust Fund if the
responsible parties are not financially capable of paying for the cleanup. In addition to continuing
to implement EPAct requirements, a key area of work for EPA is assessing the compatibility of
USTs with alternative fuels and evaluating the transport and degradation characteristics of ethanol
and biodiesel blends in groundwater.
111
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Semiannual Report Of UST Performance
Measures End Of Fiscal Year 2011 (October 1, 2010 – September 30, 2011), November 2011, available at
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/ca_11_34.pdf.
112
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
35
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Table 7. Appropriations for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
Program Account: FY2010-FY2012 Enacted, Proposed for FY2013 in the President’s
Budget Request and House Committee-Reported H.R. 6091
(millions of dollars)
FY2013
House
Committee
H.R. 6091
FY2010
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
FY2011
Enacted
P.L. 112-10
FY2012
Enacted
P.L. 112-74
EPAct Provisions
$34.4
$34.4
$30.4
$32.4
$32.4
Total LUST Account
$113.1
$112.9
$104.1
$104.1
$104.1
$12.5
$13.0
$12.8
$12.3
$12.3
$2.5
$2.5
$1.5
$1.5
$1.5
Account/Program Area
FY2013
Requested
LUST Account
EPM Account
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST/UST)
STAG Account
Categorical Grant: UST
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2010 enacted amounts are as presented in 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). FY2011 enacted amounts are the prior-year amounts
presented by the House Appropriations Committee in its report accompanying the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2012 (H.R. 2584, H.Rept. 112-151, pp. 192-200). FY2012 enacted amounts,
and the FY2013 proposed amounts, are as presented by the House Appropriations Committee in its report
accompanying the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2013 (H.R. 6091, H.Rept.
112-589, pp. 170-177), as reported July 10, 2012. The FY2011 and FY2012 enacted amounts reflect applicable
rescissions. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Geographic-Specific/Ecosystem Programs113
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 FY2013 funding proposed in H.R. 6091 as reported by the House
Appropriations Committee with the President’s FY2013 request and with FY2010 through
FY2012 enacted appropriations for geographic-specific/ecosystem program areas identified as
individual line-items in the request.
113
(name redacted), Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and Industry
Division was a primary contributor to this section.
Congressional Research Service
36
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Table 8. Appropriations for Selected Geographic-Specific/Ecosystem Programs:
FY2010-FY2012 Enacted, Proposed for FY2013 in the President’s Budget Request
and House Committee-Reported H.R. 6091
(millions of dollars)
Geographic/Ecosystem Program
FY2010
FY2011
Enacted
Enacted
P.L. 111-88 P.L. 112-10
FY2012
Enacted
P.L. 112-74
FY2013
Requested
FY2013
House
Committee
H.R. 6091
Water: Ecosystems Total
$58.5
$53.3
$48.2
$55.0
$48.2
National Estuary Program
$32.6
$26.7
$27.0
$27.3
$27.0
Great Lakes Legacy Acta
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Wetlands
$25.9
$26.5
$21.2
$27.7
$21.2
Geographic Programs Total
$608.4
$416.0
$409.7
$411.7
$346.3
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
$475.0
$299.4
$299.5
$300.0
$250.0
Great Lakes Programa
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Chesapeake Bay Program
$50.0
$54.4
$57.3
$72.6
$50.0
San Francisco Bay
$7.0
$5.3
$5.8
$4.9
$4.9
South Florida
$2.2
$1.7
$2.1
$1.7
$1.7
Puget Sound
$50.0
$38.1
$30.0
$19.3
$30.0
Long Island Sound Program
$7.0
$5.3
$4.0
$3.0
$3.0
Gulf of Mexico Program
$6.0
$4.6
$5.5
$4.4
$4.4
Lake Champlain Basin Program
$4.0
$3.0
$2.4
$1.4
$1.4
Lake Pontchartrain
$1.5
$1.1
$2.0
$1.0
$1.0
Community Action for Renewed Environment
(CARE)
$2.4
$1.9
$0.0
$2.1
$0.0
Other Geographic Programs and Regional
Initiatives
$3.3
$1.2
$1.3
$1.4
$0.0
$666.9
$469.3
$457.9
$466.7
$394.5
Total Ecosystem/Geographic Programs
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2010 enacted amounts are as presented in 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). FY2011 enacted amounts are the prior-year amounts
presented by the House Appropriations Committee in its report accompanying the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2012 (H.R. 2584, H.Rept. 112-151, pp. 192-200). FY2012 enacted amounts,
and the FY2013 proposed amounts, are as presented by the House Appropriations Committee in its report
accompanying the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2013 (H.R. 6091, H.Rept.
112-589, pp. 170-177), as reported July 10, 2012. The FY2011 and FY2012 enacted amounts reflect applicable
rescissions. 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.
Congressional Research Service
37
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
In 2004, President Bush established a Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, chaired by EPA,114 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. 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.115 Projects and programs are to be implemented through 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 $250.0 million116 proposed for FY2013 for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative within the
EPM account by the House committee is $50.0 million less than requested for FY2013 and $49.5
million less than the FY2012 enacted level, and $175.0 million below the FY2010 enacted
appropriations of $475.0 million. Some Members and stakeholders expressed concern about the
reduced funding level since FY2011.
Chesapeake Bay
In May 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13508: Chesapeake Bay Protection and
Restoration, which directed federal departments and agencies to exercise greater leadership in
implementing their existing authorities 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. As indicated in
Table 8, for FY2013 the House committee proposed $50.0 million to implement its Chesapeake
Bay program, the same level as enacted for FY2010 but $22.6 million less than the FY2013
President’s budget request, $7.3 million less than FY2012, and $4.4 million less than FY2011. Of
the funding proposed by the House committee for FY2013, $8.0 million is for nutrient
management and sediment removal grants, and $2.0 million is for small watershed grants to
control polluted runoff from urban, suburban, and agricultural lands.117 The FY2013 President’s
requested increase for the program was intended to accelerate pollution reduction and aquatic
habitat restoration efforts in the Bay, consistent with the objectives of the 2009 executive order.
National (Congressional) Priorities and Earmarks
The House Appropriations Committee proposed a combined total of $20.0 million for “National
Priorities” within the Science and Technology (S&T) and the Environmental Programs and
114
The Great Lakes Interagency Task Force was established by Executive Order in 2004; for information see
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/iatf/index.html.
115
For information, see the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative website, http://greatlakesrestoration.us/.
116
An Administrative Provision under Title II of the FY2013 House committee-reported bill (H.R. 6091) would
authorize the EPA Administrator to transfer up to $250.0 million of the funds appropriated for the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative (GLRI) within the EPM account to other federal departments or agencies to carry out projects
supporting the GLRI and the Great Lakes Water Agreement programs, projects, or activities.
117
H.Rept. 112-589, p. 52.
Congressional Research Service
38
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Management (EPM) accounts for FY2013, roughly the same combined total included in the
FY2012 enacted appropriations.118 The $5.0 million proposed within the S&T account for
FY2013 in the House committee report (H.Rept. 112-589) for “Research: National Priorities” is
slightly higher than the amount included for FY2012 after accounting for rescissions. The funding
is to be used for competitive extramural research grants to fund high-priority water quality and
availability research by not-for-profit organizations who often partner with the agency.119
Additionally, $15.0 million was proposed for FY2013 for “Environmental Protection: National
Priorities” in the EPM account to be used for competitive grants for qualified nonprofits to
provide rural and urban communities with technical assistance to improve water quality and
provide safe drinking water. Of the total, which again is slightly higher than FY2012 after
accounting for rescissions, $13.0 million would have been for providing training and technical
assistance on a national level, or multi-state regional basis, and $2.0 million would have been for
providing technical assistance to private drinking water well owners.120
The House committee has adhered to an earmark moratorium during the 112th Congress as put
forth by the leadership in both chambers, generally precluding earmarks in the appropriations
bills for FY2011, FY2012, and FY2013.121 The moratorium followed the adoption of definitions
of earmarks in House and Senate rules. 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 separate definitions for purposes of implementing new earmark
transparency requirements in their respective chambers.122 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).123
118
See H.Rept. 112-331 accompanying P.L. 112-74.
H.Rept. 112-589, p. 47.
120
Ibid., p. 51.
121
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.
122
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 (name redacted), and CRS Report RS22867, Earmark Disclosure Rules in the Senate: Member and
Committee Requirements, by (name redacted).
123
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.
119
Congressional Research Service
39
EPA Appropriations for FY2013: Debate During the 112th Congress
Appendix A. Historical Funding Trends and
Staffing Levels
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.124 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,
and to help fund the implementation and enforcement of federal regulations delegated to the
states.
Table 1 presents FY2008-FY2012 enacted appropriations and the President’s FY2013 budget
request for EPA by each of the eight accounts.
Figure A-1 presents a history of total discretionary budget authority for EPA from FY1976
through FY2012, and the President’s FY2013 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 2013. Levels of agency budget authority prior to FY1976
were not reported by OMB in the Historical Tables. In Figure A-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 A-1.
124
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
40
Table A-1. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency: FY2008-FY2012 Enacted, and Proposed for FY2013
in the President’s Budget Request and House Committee-Reported H.R. 6091
(millions of dollars not adjusted for inflation)
FY2013
House
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
Comm.
P.L. 111-88 P.L. 112-10 P.L. 112-74 Requested H.R. 6091
FY2008
P.L. 110-161
FY2009
Omnibus
P.L. 111-8
FY2009
ARRA
P.L. 111-5
FY2009
Total
—Base Appropriations
$760.1
$790.1
$0.0
$790.1
$848.1a
$813.5
$793.7
$807.3
$734.8
—Transfer in from Superfund
+$25.7
+$26.4
$0.0
+$26.4
+$26.8
+$26.8
+$23.0
+$23.2
+$23.0
Science and Technology Total
$785.8
$816.5
$0.0
$816.5
$874.9
$840.3
$816.7
$830.5
$761.3
$2,328.0
$2,392.1
$0.0
$2,392.1
$2,993.8
$2,756.5
$2,678.2
$2,817.2
$2,479.1
—Base Appropriations
$41.1
$44.8
$20.0
$64.8
$44.8
$44.7
$41.9
$48.3
$41.9
—Transfer in from Superfund
+$11.5
+$10.0
$0.0
+$10.0
+$10.0
+$10.0
+$9.9
+$10.9
+$9.9
Office of Inspector General Total
$52.6
$54.8
$20.0
$74.8
$54.8
$54.7
$51.8
$59.1
$51.9
Buildings & Facilities
$34.3
$35.0
$0.0
$35.0
$37.0
$36.4
$36.4
$42.0
$36.4
$1,254.0
$1,285.0
$600.0
$1,885.0
$1,306.5
$1,280.9
$1,213.8
$1,176.4
$1,164.9
—Transfer out to Office of Inspector
General
-$11.5
-$10.0
$0.0
-$10.0
-$10.0
-$10.0
-$9.9
-$10.9
-$9.9
—Transfer out to Science and Technology
-$25.7
-$26.4
$0.0
-$26.4
-$26.8
-$26.8
-$23.0
-$23.2
-$23.0
Hazardous Substance Superfund
(after transfers)
$1,216.8
$1,248.6
$600.0
$1,848.6
$1,269.7
$1,244.2
$1,180.9
$1,142.3
$1,132.0
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund Program
$105.8
$112.6
$200.0
$312.6
$113.1
$112.9
$104.1
$104.1
$104.1
Inland Oil Spill Program
(formerly Oil Spill Response)
$17.1
$17.7
$0.0
$17.7
$18.4
$18.3
$18.2
$23.5
$18.2
Science and Technology
Environmental Programs and Management
Office of Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
(before transfers)
CRS-41
FY2013
House
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
Comm.
P.L. 111-88 P.L. 112-10 P.L. 112-74 Requested H.R. 6091
FY2008
P.L. 110-161
FY2009
Omnibus
P.L. 111-8
FY2009
ARRA
P.L. 111-5
FY2009
Total
—Clean Water State Revolving Fund
$689.1
$689.1
$4,000.0
$4,689.1
$2,100.0
$1,522.0
$1,466.5
$1,175.0
$689.0
—Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
$829.0
$829.0
$2,000.0
$2,829.0
$1,387.0
$963.1
$917.9
$850.0
$829.0
—Special (Congressional) Project Grants
$132.9
$145.0
$0.0
$145.0
$156.8
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,078.3
$1,094.9
$0.0
$1,094.9
$1,116.4
$1,104.2
$1,088.8
$1,202.4
$994.0
—Brownfields Section 104(k) Grants
$93.5
$97.0
$100.0
$197.0
$100.0
$99.8
$94.8
$93.3
$60.0
—Diesel Emission Reduction Grants
$49.2
$60.0
$300.0
$360.0
$60.0
$49.9
$30.0
$15.0
$30.0
—Other State and Tribal Assistance Grants
$54.2
$53.5
$0.0
$53.5
$50.0
$19.9
$15.0
$20.9
$0.0
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Total
$2,926.2
$2,968.5
$6,400.0
$9,368.5
$4,970.2
$3,758.9
$3,612.9
$3,355.7
$2,602.0
-$5.0
-$10.0
$0.0
-$10.0
-$40.0
-$140.0
-$50.0
-$30.0
-$130.0
$7,461.5
$7,635.7
$7,220.0
$14,855.7
$10,291.9a
$8,682.1
$8,449.4
$8,344.5
$7,055.0
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
—Categorical Grants
Rescissions of Unobligated Balancesb
Total EPA Accounts
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 FY2008-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 e
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
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.