• neiwpcc rotator image 1
  • neiwpcc rotator image 2
  • neiwpcc rotator image 3
  • neiwpcc rotator image 4
  • neiwpcc rotator image 5
  • neiwpcc rotator image 6
  • neiwpcc rotator image 7
  • neiwpcc rotator image 8
  • neiwpcc rotator image 9
neiwpcc banner
anniversary logo

Publications
and Resources

Training Catalogs

  • NEIWPCC
    Course Catalog
  • JETCC Training Catalog
  • Mass. Operator Schedule
  • Other Publications

  • Training/Education
  • Technical Guides
  • Technical Reports
  • Interstate Water Report LUSTLine Annual Report Resource Catalog

    Publications & Resources | Interstate Water Report

    Online Archives

    New Leaders, New Questions

    by Ronald Poltak, NEIWPCC Executive Director

    The November elections are over. The votes have been counted. And the Democrats have won majorities in both houses of Congress. What can we expect now regarding the immediate future of federally-supported environmental programs?

    Let me try to answer that question. Democratic leaders announced plans on December 11 to extend EPA funding at Fiscal Year 2006 levels rather than move toward enactment of an FY07 spending bill. This would create a mixed funding picture for EPA programs. Some would likely avoid cuts contained in the FY07 proposal, while others would continue with reduced levels as contained in the FY06 budget.

    In their December 11 announcement, Democratic leaders acknowledged that their plan would have some negative consequences. In a joint statement, incoming House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) and incoming Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-WV) said, “While the results may be far from ideal, this path provides the best way to dispose of the unfinished business quickly.”

    I believe state and interstate officials have very mixed feelings about continuing until next October under a continuing resolution. In terms of programs, the situation would create both winners and losers. Obviously, the Clean Water Revolving Fund would benefit. Its FY06 funding level was $887 million nationally, while in the FY07 budget proposed by President Bush, it would have been slashed by $200 million. Conversely, while I’m no big fan of set-asides or earmarks, there were $270 million worth of them in the FY07 budget, some for very legitimate purposes. How the earmarked funding would get reallocated among EPA and other agencies could create problems for vital organizations that have depended on that source of funding for years.

    While sorting out the questions surrounding the FY07 budget will be the order of the day initially for the new Congress, it must be recognized that the FY08 budget will be made public shortly, on February 4. By the time you read this letter, you may already know the details. Writing as I am, in early January, I can only go by the indications, which are that the FY08 budget will be less kind to environmental needs than ever before. If so, it will be a true test of the new leadership. It will be incumbent upon them to work with state officials and craft a budget that truly recognizes the many needs of the nation’s water and environmental programs. That is something we’ve long been waiting for.

     

    | Home | About Us | Contact Us | Back to Top | ©1997-2012 New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission; Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont