Cover Image

HARDBACK
$74.95



View/Hide Left Panel

The Federal Budget and Environmental Priorities1

ALBERT H. TEICH

American Association for the Advancement of Science

CONTENTS

1  

This paper was prepared at the request of the National Research Council by the author writing as an individual. The interpretations and opinions contained herein are solely those of the author and should not be taken to represent positions of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, its Board, or its Council. The author wishes to thank Kei Koizumi for his assistance in the preparation of the paper.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals The Federal Budget and Environmental Priorities1 ALBERT H. TEICH American Association for the Advancement of Science CONTENTS     INTRODUCTION   347     Focus,   347     Caveats Regarding the Analysis,   347     ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES AND TRENDS IN THE FEDERAL BUDGET   348     EPA—A First Approximation,   348     Overview of EPA's FY 1995 Budget,   349     Trends in EPA's Budget,   350     Environmental Programs in Other Federal Agencies,   350     Defining "Environmental Programs",   350     Budget Trends,   355     FUNDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL R&D   355     Environmental R&D in Relation to Other Environmental Programs,   355     Definition and Overview,   357     Agency Highlights,   359     Environmental R&D in the Context of Overall Federal R&D,   365 1   This paper was prepared at the request of the National Research Council by the author writing as an individual. The interpretations and opinions contained herein are solely those of the author and should not be taken to represent positions of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, its Board, or its Council. The author wishes to thank Kei Koizumi for his assistance in the preparation of the paper.

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals     ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDING AND NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS: CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK   370     APPENDIX A   373     APPENDIX B   394     APPENDIX C   397

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals INTRODUCTION Focus The federal budget is the central process of American government. Through the budget process, incommensurable quantities are compared, priorities are set, and the plans of federal agencies are laid out for Congress and the public to review, approve, modify, or reject. If one is to ask, therefore, what are the nation's priorities with regard to the environment, the federal budget is an obvious place to look for the answer. This paper is an attempt to take a rough first cut at examining national environmental priorities using federal budget data as its primary source. Specifically, it will attempt to respond to several questions: How are federal environmental priorities reflected in budgetary patterns and trends? How have these priorities shifted over the past several years? What part does environmental R&D play in overall federal funding for environmental programs? How does funding for environmental R&D compare to overall federal R&D funding? What can be said about the relation between funding for environmental programs and current statements of environmental goals? Caveats Regarding the Analysis Budget analysis is a complex and tedious undertaking. Time and resource constraints limit this paper to no more than a first approximation at responding to the above questions. In addition, several conceptual and practical issues that may limit the utility of the analysis should be noted. First is the difficulty of defining environmental programs in an unambiguous manner. A huge variety of government activities impact the environment and could be classified as environmental programs. These range from energy production and conservation programs to agricultural efforts (e.g., promotion of integrated pest management) to outdoor recreation programs. At some level, it is necessary to make fairly arbitrary distinctions in order to limit the scope of "environmental." The umbrella covering environmental programs is discussed below. Differing definitions will, of course, yield different results. Second is the difficulty of obtaining budget data at an appropriate level of aggregation. Extracting information about individual programs from federal budget documents is an arduous task when the subject is the current year's budget. The job is made infinitely more difficult in looking at trend data, as the budget documents tend to be ephemeral and organizational changes often make it difficult to track programs from year to year.

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Third, and more fundamental, is the fact that budgetary data are an imperfect indicator of priority. The spending levels of different federal programs do indicate that society (through its government) has decided to allocate more money for one than the other, which can be construed as an indicator of preference, or a measure of priority. Yet some things cost more by nature. Launching a satellite to monitor conditions in the upper atmosphere may be considerably more expensive than a project that involves conducting national field studies of water quality. Their costs may differ by a factor of ten or even 100. This does not necessarily mean that one is 100 times more important than the other. Fourth, in judging the relations between environmental budgets and statements of environmental goals there is the problem of whose goals are "national goals." In our pluralistic society, there may be numerous conflicting views of what constitutes an appropriate set of national goals for the environment. Indeed, the very existence of the Forum for which this paper has been prepared, is evidence of the lack of consensus on such goals. Finally, it should be remembered that the federal government is not the only source of funds for environmental programs. State and local governments as well as the private sector expend considerable sums on programs and activities related to the environment. None of these are included in the present analysis. The federal government may choose to spend more or less on a particular activity not because it is more or less important, but because others are already covering it adequately. ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES AND TRENDS IN THE FEDERAL BUDGET EPA—A First Approximation The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal government's flagship agency for environmental regulation, for mitigation and remediation of problems caused by environmental pollution, for environmental monitoring, and for R&D related to these missions. It was formed in 1970 by bringing together units from several different federal departments and agencies, including components of the Department of the Interior and the then-Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. EPA's responsibilities include administration of programs under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and several other major pieces of environmental legislation. Although most definitions of environmental programs include a considerable number of other federal activities, the level of funding for EPA and trends in the agency's budget are useful indicators of the priority of environmental protection at the federal level.

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Overview of EPA's FY 1995 Budget EPA's FY 1995 budget totals $5.731 billion. This figure includes $1.510 billion in rescissions enacted by the 104th Congress in the spring of 1995. Originally appropriated FY 1995 budget authority for EPA was $7.241 billion. The largest share of the rescission ($1.302 billion) was taken out of EPA's Water Infrastructure Financing program, which also represents the largest single element of the agency's budget. In the current budget, Water Infrastructure Financing represents 29 percent of EPA's total budget; prior to the rescission, it constituted 41 percent of EPA's budget. The upper portion of Table 1 shows EPA's FY 1995 budget by function, providing one view of its program priorities. (NOTE: All tables and charts are found at the end of this paper.) As noted above, nearly a third of the agency's budget (down from two-fifths prior to the rescission) is devoted to the Water Infrastructure Financing program which provides support to state and local governments for construction and improvement projects to help meet water quality standards and ensure drinking water safety. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund awards grants to state programs that provide low cost financing to municipalities for sewage treatment projects. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund offers loans to help governments improve their drinking water systems. Second to Water Infrastructure in EPA's FY 1995 budget is the "Abatement, Control and Compliance" line under which EPA funds contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements for pollution abatement, control and compliance activities, as well administrative activities, including regulatory enforcement. These programs represent nearly one-fourth of EPA's current funding, a total of $1.405 billion. Superfund, at $1.331 billion, is EPA's third major budget element in FY 1995, representing 23 percent or almost a quarter of total spending. This program is responsible for cleanup of hazardous waste sites and associated activities. Together, the three top program areas account for more than three-quarters of EPA's budget. The "Research and Development" line, $335 million in FY 1995, represents less than 6 percent of EPA's budget. This is somewhat misleading, however. The R&D appropriations account finances mainly extramural research through grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements with industry, universities, nonprofits, and other federal agencies, as well as some in-house activities. The costs of most in-house R&D (including personnel and related costs) are funded through the "Program and Research Operations" account, and some is included in "Abatement, Control and Compliance.'' In addition, nearly $70 million of R&D is supported through Superfund and smaller amounts of R&D are supported under two other trust funds. Thus, EPA's total R&D in FY 1995 is estimated at $600 million, representing about 10.5 percent of the agency's budget. This is discussed in more detail below.

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals The "Program and Research Operations" account, it should be noted, also includes personnel costs and travel expenses associated with administering many other (non-R&D) EPA programs, excluding Superfund, the Water Infrastructure Financing program, and a few other areas. A somewhat different view of EPA's budget priorities may be gained from the lower portion of Table 1, which displays FY 1995 funding by media. Again, Water Infrastructure Financing stands out, representing more than a quarter of the agency's budget when sliced in this manner. In fact, if one lumps this line together with the "Water Quality" and "Drinking Water" lines, it becomes apparent that water is EPA's dominant concern, at least in dollar terms ($2.148 billion or 37.5 percent of the total). Hazardous waste (combining Superfund and the ''Hazardous Waste" line) comes a close second ($1.623 billion, 28.3 percent), followed by air at just under 10 percent and "multimedia" at 7.6 percent ($438 million). Toxics, pesticides, and radiation account for small fractions. It should be noted that these figures do not include more than $650 million in "Management and Support" costs. The latter should be allocated among the programs and would augment their percentage shares somewhat. Figures 1 and 2 display this information in graphical format. Trends in EPA's Budget The FY 1995 rescission, following cuts in FY 1994, has turned EPA's budget trend sharply downward. As it stands now, EPA's FY 1995 budget is actually 4 percent below its level of ten years ago in constant dollars. Table 2 shows this long-term trend over the period FY 1985-1995, and Figures 3 and 4 display EPA's total budget in current and constant dollars over the decade. Table 2 also indicates that EPA's budget has been declining relative to other components of domestic discretionary spending in the federal budget. In FY 1985, EPA's budget represented 2.73 percent of total domestic discretionary spending. This figure peaked at 3.50 percent four years later in FY 1989 and has now declined to 2.67 percent. The table and charts also include the House-passed FY 1996 appropriation level. (As of this writing, the Senate has not yet considered EPA's appropriation.) As can be seen, EPA's budget would take an unprecedented cut under this legislation. Environmental Programs in Other Federal Agencies Defining "Environmental Programs" While EPA is the major focus of environmental concern in the federal government, it does not come close to representing the full extent of federal efforts relating to the environment. Delimiting the federal role in the environment is not a straightforward task. In one sense, nearly everything the federal government

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals TABLE 1 Environmental Protection Agency Budget for Fiscal Year 1995 (budget authority in millions of dollars)   FY 1995a Percent of EPA Budget By Function  Program and Research Operations 922.0 16.1% Research and Development 334.6 5.8% Abatement, Control & Compliance 1,404.6 24.5% Buildings and Facilities -39.4 — Oil Spill Response 20.0 0.3% Asbestos Loan Program 0.0 0.0% Hazardous Substance Superfund 1,331.3 23.2% L.U.S.T. Trust Fundb 70.0 1.2% Water Infrastructure/State Revolving Funds 1,659.6 29.0% Other 28.5 0.5% Total, EPA Budget 5,731.2   By Media Air 558.4 9.7% Radiation 42.8 0.7% Water Quality 516.7 9.0% Drinking Water 163.8 2.9% Water Infrastructure Financing 1,467.1 25.6% Pesticides 94.2 1.6% Toxic Substances 124.9 2.2% Multimedia 438.1 7.6% Hazardous Waste 291.6 5.1% Hazardous Substance Superfund 1,331.3 23.2% L.U.S.T.b 70.0 1.2% Oil Spill Response 20.0 0.3% Management and Support 651.7 11.4% Buildings and Facilities -39.4 — Total EPA Budget 5,731.2   SOURCE: EPA Budget Justification for FY 1996 and text of Public Law 104-19. a Adjusted to reflect rescissions enacted in Public Law 104-19. These rescissions total $1,509.6 million, of which $1,302.2 million are from Water Infrastructure/SRF. These rescissions are of FY 1995 as well as prior-year funds, but are scored against FY 1995 budget authority. The original FY 1995 budget authority was $7,240.8 million. b Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. does, from conducting military operations to shaping national economic policy, has an impact on the environment. In addition, the federal government owns nearly one-third of the land in the United States, holds title to the resources of the outer continental shelf, and manages fisheries and marine mammal populations in waters within 200 miles of the coast (Gramp, Teich, and Nelson 1992, p. 7).

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Figure 1 EPA budget by function, FY 1995. Figure 2 EPA budget by media, FY 1995.

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals TABLE 2 Environmental Protection Agency Budget (budget authority in billions of dollars, by fiscal year)   FY 1985 FY 1989 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995a House FY 1996b EPA budget 4.35 5.08 6.46 6.74 6.44 5.73 4.89 Total domestic discretionary spending 159.3 145.2 209.3 212.3 229.0 214.0 N/A EPA as % of total domestic discretionaryc 2.73% 3.50% 3.09% 3.17% 2.81% 2.67% — EPA budget (in constant FY 1987 dollars)d 4.61 4.69 5.33 5.43 5.09 4.41 3.66 SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year 1996 and OMB, Mid-Session Review of the 1996 Budget. a Adjusted to reflect rescissions enacted in Public Law 104-19. b Based on House-approved VA-HUD appropriations bill. c Excludes discretionary spending in defense and international programs. d Defiated using fiscal year GDP deflators from OMB. Furthermore, the environment is integral to such federal functions as assisting the agricultural and energy federal sectors, managing the National Parks, predicting the weather, and assisting with natural disaster preparedness and recovery. Rather than include practically everything the government does under the "environmental" rubric, we have taken a fairly narrow definition of environment, and included federal programs relating to pollution control and abatement, conservation and management of natural resources, and managing policy related to global climate change. This definition is essentially contiguous with the federal government's "Environment and Natural Resources" budget function, except that it excludes finding for reclamation projects, flood control, public lands acquisition, and other land management-oriented programs and it includes NASA environmental programs classified under "General Science and Space" budget function. The scope includes environmental R&D in the various agencies, but goes well beyond R&d into operational programs. It encompasses activities in at least 12 federal civilian agencies plus the Department of Defense (DOD). Data are presented here for the eight largest among the civilian agencies. DOD (with the exception of the Army Corps of Engineers) is not included because data on its environmental programs were not available in a timely manner. Comments on DOD are included in a few places based on data obtained in the author's 1992 study of federal funding for environmental R&D (Gramp, Teich, and Nelson 1992).

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals FIGURE 3 EPA budget, FYs 1985–1996 (House). FIGURE 4 EPA budget in constant dollars, FYs 1985–1996 (House).

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Budget Trends Table 3 presents a summary of federal programs in environment and natural resources that fit the definition presented above. The information in the table is based on federal budget documents. The total shown on the table, $22.7 billion in FY 1995, is probably a low-end estimate of the government's total effort relating to the environment. Environmental R&D not included in the data set would add approximately $1 billion to this total (including DOD, the four civilian agencies omitted, and an estimate of environmental health research not covered in this analysis). The total shown represents a bit more than 10 percent of the federal government's total domestic discretionary spending. Somewhat surprisingly, EPA shows up not at the top of the list but in second place among the agencies whose programs are identified in this table. Ranking first is the Department of Energy, mainly because of its Defense Environmental Restoration program (i.e., the nuclear materials and weapons facilities cleanup), which includes $4.855 billion in non-R&D activities and its nondefense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management program, funded at $723 million in FY 1995. Together, these efforts total $5.578 billion, nearly as much as the entire EPA budget. DOE also conducts a significant amount of environmental R&D, which, together with its other programs, including nuclear waste disposal and uranium enrichment decontamination, bring its total environmental portfolio to more than $7 billion. Other major players among federal agencies include the Forest Service (within the Department of Agriculture); NASA, with life sciences research and Mission to Planet Earth; and NOAA, among whose programs and agencies are the National Weather Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Ocean Service, and a range of oceanic and atmospheric research programs. Also on the chart are the Departments of the Interior (with just over $1 billion in FY 1995), the National Science Foundation, and R&D conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers. The three-year trend in the bottom line of this table is essentially flat in current dollars, indicating a loss in constant dollars. And it does not take a clairvoyant to see that the trend over the next several years is likely to be even more negative. FUNDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL R&D Environmental R&D in Relation to Other Environmental Programs As discussed in the previous section, the agencies with the largest environmental programs are DOE and EPA. In both of these agencies, environmental R&D is a relatively small part of overall spending for environmental programs. EPA's R&D represents a total of $600 million out of the agency's $5.7 billion budget, about 10.5 percent. DOE's environmental R&D, estimated at $580 million, constitutes only 8 percent of its $7.1 billion in environmental programs,

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Table II-10. Estimate of Environmental R&D at the Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (budget authority in millions of dollars, by fiscal year)1   FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 Avg. Annual % Change FY 1990-92 SOCIAL SCIENCES Natural Resource Management 6 6 7 8% Global Change/Economics 0 0 1 -- Total, ERS Environmental R&D 6 6 7 14% Source: Authors' estimates. 1 ERS budget authority has been projected based on 1990 data in the Current Research Information System for goals pertaining to the environmental and for environmental sciences research supporting other goals. Table II-11. Estimate of Environmental R&D at the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (budget authority in millions of dollars, by fiscal year)1   FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 Avg. Annual % Change FY 1990-92 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Global Change 16 23 21 13% New Perspectives: Ecological Management 7 13 14 42% Threatened, Endang, and Sensitive Species 5 7 7 16% Tropical Forestry 4 4 6 27% Wetlands 0 * 3 -- Forest Health Monitoring 1 1 2 30% Resource Management: Other Life Sciences 39 39 40 2% Resource Management: Physical Env. Sci. 10 10 10 2% Subtotal 82 97 103 12% SOCIAL SCIENCES Economics of Timber Production 2 2 2 9% Global Change/Human Interactions 0 0 3 -- Subtotal 2 2 5 62% ENGINEERING AND RELATED R&D Protection from Pollution 3 3 3 2% Alleviation of Pollution 2 2 2 2% Watershed Protection and Management 1 1 1 2% Subtotal 6 6 6 2% INFORMATION AND DATA R&D Geographic Information System 0 1 1 -- Total, FS Environmental R&D 89 106 115 13% Source: Author's estimates. * Less than $500,000. 1 FS budget authority has been projected based on 1990 data in the Current Research Information System for goals pertaining to the environment and for environmental sciences research supporting other goals.

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Table II-12. Estimate of Environmental R&D at the Environmental Protection Agency (budget authority in millions of dollars, by fiscal year)   FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 Avg. Annual % Change FY 1990-92 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Environmental Processes & Effects 52 53 65 12% Env. Sciences w/in Monitoring Systems 25 28 49 40% Env. Monitoring & Assessment Pgm. (EMAP) 17 16 21 11% Stratospheric Modification Program 15 22 23 25% Exploratory Research 13 17 18 17% Acid Deposition 23 8 8 -40% Ecological Risk Uncertainty 3 3 3 -1% Env. Sciences in Technical Liaison 2 3 3 4% Subtotal 150 149 190 12% SOCIAL SCIENCES Socio-Economic Research 0 1 1 -- ENGINEERING AND RELATED R&D Environmental Engineering & Technology 97 96 94 -1% Monitoring Systems 32 31 29 -5% Exploratory Research 13 16 14 7% Acid Deposition 7 2 3 -40% Technical Liaison 8 9 9 4% Subtotal 157 154 149 -2% INFORMATION AND DATA R&D High Performance Computing 0 * 4 -- EMAP/Computer Sciences 0 4 5 -- Subtotal 0 4 8 -- Total, EPA Environmental R&D1 307 307 347 6% Source: Authors' estimates based on agency budget justification and cross-cut by field of science. * Less than $500,000. 1 Including administrative overhead and R&D related to environmental health, EPA's R&D funding totaled $424 million in FY 1990, $440 million in FY 1991, and $502 million in FY 1992.

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Table II-13. Estimate of Environmental R&D at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration1 (budget authority in millions of dollars, by fiscal year)   FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 Aug. Annual % Change FY 1990–92 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES OAR, Climate & Global Change 17 44 44 63% OAR, Weather Research 28 29 28 1% OAR, Long-term Climate & Air Quality 17 18 18 3% OAR, Acid Rain/Oxidants/Ozone 4 4 4 0% OAR, Interannual/Seasonal 7 7 7 0% OAR, National Climate Program 2 2 0 -100% OAR, Marine Prediction/Great Lakes 16 18 21 13% OAR, Sea Grant/Environmental Sciences 12 12 12 1% OAR, Undersea Research 8 10 11 13% NWS, National Weather Service 15 12 28 37% NOS, Estuarine & Coastal Assessment 12 11 14 10% NOS, Coastal Ocean Science 6 10 12 34% NOS, Observation & Prediction 2 2 2 -1% NOS, Estuarine and Marine Sanctuaries 1 1 1 -14% NOS, Ocean minerals & energy 1 1 1 1% NMFS, Fisheries Resource Information 75 79 91 10% NMFS, Fishery Information Analysis 6 6 6 0% NMFS, Marine Fisheries Grants to States 5 5 5 5% NMFS, Fishery Management Programs 0 * 2 -- NMFS, Protected Species Management 0 0 * -- NMFS, Promote & Develop Fisheries R&D 5 7 1 -68% Subtotal 237 277 305 13% SOCIAL SCIENCES OAR, Sea Grant 1 1 1 34% NMFS, Fishery Industry Information * * * 0% Subtotal 1 1 1 26% ENGINEERING AND RELATED R&D OAR, Sea Grant 2 2 2 3% INFORMATION AND DATA R&D NOS, Geodesy 1 2 2 17% NOS, Mapping and Charting * * * 2% National Env. Data & Information Service 8 8 9 3% Subtotal 10 11 11 5% Total, NOAA Environmental R&D 250 290 319 13% Source: Author's estimates based on agency R&D cross-cut and budget justification. * Less than $500,000. 1 Agencies within NOAA include Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Weather Service (NWS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the National Environmental Data and Information Service.

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Table II-14. Estimate of Environmental R&D at the Agency for International Development (budget authority in millions of dollars, by fiscal year)   FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 Aug. Annual % Change FY 1990–92 Environmental Sciences Env. Science in Support of Agriculture 15 15 16 3% Natural Resource Conservation/Management 11 7 7 -18% Innovative Science 4 3 3 -11% Marine/Coastal Resource Management 3 2 4 20% Watershed Management 1 1 1 4% Subtotal 34 29 31 -4% SOCIAL SCIENCES Economics 3 3 4 29% Social Sciences 4 4 4 0% Subtotal 7 7 9 11% ENGINEERING AND RELATED R&D Pollution Prevention 0 0 3 -- Other 2 2 2 5% Subtotal 2 2 5 56% Total, AID Environmental R&D 43 38 45 2%   Source: Author's estimates based on agency budget justification and R&D cross-cut.

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Table II-15. Estimate of Environmental R&D at the Smithsonian Institution (budget authority in millions of dollars, by fiscal year)   FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 Aug. Annual % Change FY 1990–92 Environmental Sciences Natural History Museum 16 17 19 10% Tropical Research Institute 6 6 7 8% Environmental Research Center 2 2 2 12% International Environmental Science 1 1 1 11% National Zoo Park 2 3 3 8% Astrophysical Observatory/Global Change 0 * * -- Nat'l Air and Space Museum/Global Change 0 * * -- Subtotal 27 30 33 11% SOCIAL SCIENCES Human Ecology History/Global Change 0 * * -- Total, SI Environmental R&D 27 31 33 11% Source: Authors' estimates based on agency R&D cross-cut by field of science. * Less than $500,000. Table II-16. Estimate of Environmental R&D at the Tennessee Valley Authority (budget authority in millions of dollars, by fiscal year)   FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 Avg. Annual % Change FY 1990–92 ENGINEERING AND RELATED R&D Nutrients and Water Quality 9 13 13 23% Agricultural, Municipal & Indust. Wastes 7 9 9 15% Electric Power Program1 3 3 8 57% Total, TVA Environmental R&D 19 25 31 27% Source: Authors' estimates based on agency budget materials and communications. 1 Represents obligational authority financed by TVA ratepayers.

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Table II-17. Estimate of Environmental R&D at the Corps of Engineers (budget authority in millions of dollars, by fiscal year)   FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 Avg. Annual % Change FY 1990–92 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Long-Term Env. Effects of Dredging 1 1 1 0% Subtotal 1 1 1 0% SOCIAL SCIENCES Economic Impact of Global Warming 0 0 * -- Water Investment Risk Analysis 0 0 1 -- Subtotal 0 0 1 -- ENGINEERING AND RELATED R&D Wetlands Research 1 3 7 182% Coastal Engineering 5 6 6 4% Aquatic Plant Control 3 3 4 4% Flood Control and Related R&D 3 3 3 2% Environmental Quality 2 2 1 -8% Water Resource Plan Studies 2 2 1 -25% Natural Resources * 1 1 27% Zebra Mussel Control 0 0 1 -- Subtotal 17 19 23 17% INFORMATION AND DATA R&D Surveying, Mapping, & Remote Sensing 1 2 2 22% Total, CE Environmental R&D 19 22 27 20% Source: Authors' estimates based on agency budget justification and related data. * Less than $500,000. Table II-18. Estimate of Federal Environmental R&D at the Department of Transportation (budget authority in millions of dollars, by fiscal year)   FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 Avg. Annual % Change FY 1990–1992 ENGINEERING AND RELATED R&D Coast Guard 4 4 6 23% Federal Highway Administration 2 3 6 64% Federal Aviation Administration 2 2 4 42% Total, DOT Environmental R&D 9 10 17 40%   Source: Authors' estimates based on agency budget justifications and R&D cross-cuts.

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals APPENDIX B From: Intersociety Working Group, AAAS Report XX: Research and Development, FY 1996 (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1995), pp. 123–126. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Over the last five years, EPA has made a concerted effort to steer its R&D resources toward integrated, multimedia studies. Prior to this shift, the agency's science agenda was largely reactive, focusing on particular contaminants or remedial technologies dictated by statutes. EPA has advocated, with considerable success, that its research program support both the near-term studies needed by regulatory offices and the longer-term research needed to resolve scientific uncertainties about the interrelationships among environmental problems and their effects on ecological and human communities. Striking a balance between the two is expected to strengthen the scientific rationale for assessing and managing environmental risks. EPA is also taking steps to improve the quality of the research it funds. Acting on the recommendations of a 1994 study of its operations, the agency is consolidating and restructuring its research labs and offices to eliminate overhead and focus on risk-based management. The agency also is in the process of expanding the use of competitive, peer-review grants for its research and is working with NSF to develop award protocols and project reviews. The move toward competitive awards is expected to shift some activity from contract to academic researchers. Following another study recommendation, EPA is initiating a fellowship program for doctoral and masters students, beginning with 100 fellowships in FY 1995. Agency plans also call for a mentorship program, in which top scientists from industry and academia would take temporary assignments to work with EPA researchers. The net result of these changes is that over half of the agency's $619.2 million budget for R&D in FY 1995 supports multimedia research, more than double its 20 percent share in FY 1990. Much of this growth was achieved by shifting resources from media-specific studies over this period. For example, funding for R&D related exclusively to water quality problems and Superfund sites are each about 25 percent lower than they were five years ago in constant dollar terms. The level of support for hazardous waste and toxic substances have each declined by over 40 percent in the same period. For the coming year, EPA has requested an additional $62.4 million for R&D, which would bring the total to $681.6 million for FY 1996 (up 10.1 percent over current levels). As shown in Table II-17, funding would continue to flow to the more long-term, multimedia research. The Administration would devote the lion's share of the new money to an expansion of the Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI) under the Multimedia program, proposing $119.8 million for the

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals coming year, $51.8 million (or 76.2 percent) more than FY 1995. Under the ETI program, EPA supports collaborative research to advance the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of technologies related to the climate action plan (e.g., alternatives to greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances), advanced manufacturing, and pollution prevention. About two-thirds of the ETI R&D is administered by the Office of Research and Development (ORD). At $76 million, ecosystems protection research would remain the second largest issue area despite relatively flat funding in FY 1996.2 These funds are used to develop scientific profiles, indicators, assessments, and strategies for ecosystems at three levels—national (e.g., characterizing esturine, forestry, range-land, and other ecosystems under the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program), regional (e.g., developing a scientific understanding of regional ecological problems and solutions), and watershed (e.g., predicting and understanding processes affecting watershed resources). Apart from watershed research, which accounts for most of the funding for Water Quality R&D, these projects are funded under the Multimedia budget. The agency wants to boost funding for another priority issue area, criteria air pollutants R&D (up 10.5 percent to $46 million). This program, which is aimed at developing and improving the scientific basis of air quality standards for particular pollutants, has requested an additional $4.4 million for the criteria air pollutants program to address shortcomings identified by the National Academy of Sciences in the current strategies for tropospheric ozone. Following a series of meetings convened by EPA, various public and private organizations have formed a research consortium to fund and conduct research on this issue at a ratio of 2:1 of non-EPA to EPA money. In a related area, EPA is also seeking more money for R&D on air toxics (up $4.4 million to $14.4 million) to carry out congressionally mandated studies on urban toxics and the deposition of toxics in the Great Waters region. Though much smaller in scale, the Administration has targeted selected health issues for significant increases in FY 1996. The $13 million requested for health effects research in FY 1996 (up 72 percent) assumes an infusion of $5.5 million primarily for studies on the effects of environmental exposure to chemicals that interact with the endocrine system. Funding for health risk assessments would rise to $19 million (up 42 percent) if Congress approves the $6 million increase requested to improve the methods and data upon which risk assessments are made, as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. Agency-wide support for research on human exposure would fall to $15.6 million in FY 1996 (down $1.9 million or 10.9 percent), because EPA does not envision any follow-on activities 2   EPA's budget cross-cuts by issue do not allocate all of its intramural and support expenses to particular issue areas. Thus, the figures given here may provide an incomplete tally of the total resources devoted to each issue. However, the data provide reasonable indications of the magnitude and trends in funding.

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals to the completed national human exposure assessment survey (saving $4.5 million). However, the agency has requested an additional $2 million under the Pesticides program to study special issues associated with the exposure of infants and children. EPA's effort to enhance its scientific capabilities is apparent in the increases proposed for environmental education and its ''Cross Program" (components that cut across issues and programs, such as quality assurance). The environmental education budget would gain $3.2 million (for a total of $11.8 million) to double the number of fellowships from the 100 proposed for this year to 200 in FY 1996. Similarly, about half of the $4 million increase proposed for cross programs would be devoted to expand the number of grants, support the appointment of post-doctoral scientists, and fund the mentorship exchange. As suggested by the reductions apparent in Table II-17, EPA is proposing to reduce funding for these projects to offset the cost of some of these initiatives. Perhaps the largest single source of savings is the agency's policy of halting funding on most of the "congressionally-directed" projects, which totaled $27.4 million in FY 1995. The effect of this policy is particularly pronounced on funding for exploratory grants and centers, which would drop 21 percent agency wide to $35 million because of earmarks totaling $3.6 million under Multimedia grants (e.g., EPSCoR, oil spill remediation) and $5.8 million under Superfund for the Gulf Coast and Clark Atlanta centers. Finally, it should be noted that EPA is changing its accounting of certain working capital costs attributable to research beginning in FY 1996. Data processing, mail postage, supercomputers, and other support costs that previously were funded under the Office of Administration and Research Management will now be funded directly by ORD. Although this $35 million intra-agency adjustment does not affect the agency's overall budget or level of support for R&D, it could create the appearance of a surge in R&D funding unless prior-year budgets are presented on a comparable basis. AAAS has therefore revised the estimates of EPA's R&D for FY 1994 and 1995 upward by about $30 million each year so that the year-to-year trends shown in Table II-17 are not distorted by account changes.

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals APPENDIX C From: Intersociety Working Group, AAAS Report XX: Research and Development, FY 1996 (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1995), pp. 129. Table II-1. R&D in the FY 1996 Budget by Agency (budget authority in millions of dollars)   FY 1994 Actual FY 1995 Estimate FY 1996 Budget % Change FY 95–96 Current $ Constant $ Total R&D (Conduct and Facilities) Defense (military) 35,509.6 36,272.2 35,161.2 -3.1% -5.9% NASA 9,405.5 9,874.2 9,517.1 -3.6% -6.4% Energy 6,771.2 6,534.4 7,012.9 7.3% 4.2% HHS 11,323.5 11,726.9] 12,157.1 3.7% 0.6% NIH [10,473.5] [10,840.2] [11,293.3] 4.2% 1.1% NSF 2,242.7 2,543.6 2,540.0 -0.1% -3.1% Agriculture 1,528.3 1,539.8 1,483.4 -3.7% -6.5% Interior 707.6 686.1 679.3 -1.0% -3.9% Transportation 640.8 687.0 619.5 -9.8% -12.5% EPA 588.1 619.2 681.6 10.1% 6.9% Commerce 1,021.9 1,284.1 1,403.7 9.3% 6.1% Education 175.3 174.8 181.8 4.0% 1.0% AID 315.6 314.0 255.0 -18.8% -21.2% Veterans Affairs 276.5 296.9 272.8 -8.1% -10.8% Nuclear Reg. Comm. 90.7 82.0 81.8 -0.3% -3.2% Smithsonian 133.9 134.9 138.9 3.0% -0.0% Tennessee Valley Auth. 96.0 88.6 98.8 11.5% 8.2% Corps of Engineers 51.6 54.6 55.4 1.5% -1.4% Labor 62.6 61.8 94.0 52.1% 47.7% HUD 35.6 40.5 40.8 0.7% -2.2% Justice 45.8 53.7 55.1 2.7% -0.3% Postal Service 51.0 70.0 72.0 2.9% -0.1% TOTAL R&D 71,073.9 73,139.6 72,602.0 -0.7% -3.6% Defense 38,299.1 38,837.5 37,929.9 -2.3% -5.2% Nondefense 32,774.8 34,302.2 34,672.1 1.1% -1.9%

OCR for page 345
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals This page in the original is blank.