WolfeNotes.com

EPA will release major fracking Report in 2012 and fund impact assesments

[Update #2 – Asbury Park Press carries the AP story – this is not funded by EPA’s budget, but it is a cut that is bad for the environment:

On his list of programs to cut, Obama singled out the James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory at Sandy Hook. The 50-year-old facility is a key fisheries lab in the region, studying the effects of climate change and human activities on marine populations along the Jersey Shore.

Update: 2/14/12 – As expected, NO NJ News coverage. Guess editors and enviro’s don’t want to embarrass the home town girl.

But here’s a credibility check on my emphasis, in light of national coverage:

• WaPo: Obama’s EPA budget: 1.2% cut would reduce aid to states, but Chesapeake Bay  would get more funds
• Bloomberg: Obama seeks third annual cuts in EPA’s budget by trimming grants
• ENS: US EPA 2013 budget cuts programs, supports states, tribes

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson held a press conference call to brief reporters on President Obama’s FY 2013 proposed EPA budget.

EPA funding will be cut by $105 million (to $8.344 billion) while the State Revolving Fund that supports clean water infrastructure will be cut by $359 million.

It seems extremely shortsighted and counter-productive to be cutting infrastructure funding during a period of such high unemployment, especially when unfunded clean water infrastructure deficits are so large.

Oh well, so much for the Obama fiscal stimulus policy.

Jackson read a prepared statement, stayed on script, and kept her remarks and responses to questions brief. She sounded stiff, almost robotic, and was completely out of the character I know.

Jackson’s rhetoric echoed DEP Commmissioner Bob Martin in emphasizing that EPA “core priorities” will be protected from cuts. There was a lot of rhetoric about “difficult choices” and “tough fiscal times”.

Jackson noted that there would be new funding for air and water impact assessments of natural gas fracking, and that EPA would issue a major Report on fracking in 2012.

It was unclear how the new impact assessments and the Report relate to each other, and whether it is premature to issue the Report until impact assessment is complete. I asked EPA press officer those question but have not yet received a reply.

In contrast with prior budgets, one reporter asked a question and noted that there is no specific budget line for climate change programs. Jackson did not provide a reason for that or say whether climate change program funding was cut.

Here is EPA’s summary of the budget highlights:

Key FY 2013 budget highlights include:

Supporting State Governments. The budget proposes $1.2 billion in categorical grants for states that are on the front lines implementing environmental statutes such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The increases from FY 2012 levels include nearly $66 million for State and Tribal Air Quality Management grants, nearly $27 million for Pollution Control (Clean Water Act Section 106) grants, and about $29 million for the Tribal General Assistance Program.

Protecting America’s Waters. The proposal provides $2 billion for Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving funds (SRFs). This will allow the SRFs to finance over $6 billion in wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects annually. EPA will work to target assistance to small and underserved communities with limited ability to repay loans, while maintaining state program integrity.

Cleaning Up Contaminated Sites in Communities. The proposal includes $755 million in funding for the Superfund Cleanup program which maintains funding to support cleanup at hazardous waste sites that address emergencies (Superfund Emergency Response and Removal) at the nation’s highest priority sites (Superfund Remedial).

Investing in Cutting Edge Research. EPA’s proposed budget provides $576 million to support research and innovation. Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants are funded at $81 million to conduct research in key areas such as hydraulic fracturing, potential endocrine disruptors, and green infrastructure. Building upon ongoing research and collaborating with the Department of Energy and the US Geological Survey, a total $14 million investment will begin to assess potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on air quality, water quality, and ecosystems.