National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

HARDBACK
price:$74.95
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals (1996)
Policy Division (PD)

Citation Manager

. "The Federal Budget and Environmental Priorities." Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1996.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
349
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


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.

Page
349
Front Matter (R1-R12)
Part I: Committee Report (1-2)
Summary (3-14)
Society's Environmental Goals (15-26)
Use Social Science and Risk Assessment to Make Better Societal Choices (27-36)
Focus on Monitoring to Build Better Understanding of Our Ecological Systems (37-50)
Reduce the Adverse Impacts of Chemicals in the Environment (51-60)
Develop Environmental Options for the Energy System (61-72)
Use a Systems Engineering and Ecological Approach to Reduce Resource Use (73-80)
Improve Understanding of the Relationship Between Population and Consumption as a Means to Reducing the Environmental Impacts of Population Growth (81-86)
Set Environmental Goals Via Rates and Directions of Change (87-90)
Bibliography (91-94)
Part II: Commissioned Papers (95-96)
National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research (97-134)
Measurement of Environmental Quality in the United States (135-178)
Attitudes Toward the Environment Twenty-Five Years After Earth Day (179-190)
Environmental Goals and Science Policy: A Review of Selected Countries (191-242)
Can States Make a Market for Environmental Goals? (243-280)
Setting Environmental Goals: The View from Industry. A Review of Practices from the 1960s (281-326)
Status of Ecological Knowledge Related to Policy Decision-Making Needs in the Area of (327-344)
The Federal Budget and Environmental Priorities (345-398)
Part III: Keynote Addresses and Presentations (399-400)
D. James Baker, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (401-406)
Thomas Grumbly, U.S. Department of Energy (407-412)
Barry Gold, U.S. Department of the Interior (413-418)
Harlan Watson, House Committee on Science (419-422)
David Garman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (423-430)
John Wise and Peter Truitt, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (431-436)
Judith Espinosa and Peggy Duxbury, President's Council on (437-448)
Gilbert S. Omenn, University of Washington (449-462)
Part IV: Appendixes (463-464)
A Committee Member and Staff Biographical Information (465-470)
B Forum Agenda (471-474)
C Forum Participants (475-482)
D Summary of Responses to Call for Comments (483-488)
E Respondents to Call for Comments (489-496)
F Summary of Breakout-Group Discussions (497-500)
G Detecting Changes in Time and Space (501-504)
H Contents and Executive Summary of a Report of the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government (505-516)
Index (517-530)