BUDGET COMMENT

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY HOLDS ITS OWN, BUT IS THAT ENOUGH?

As posted earlier, the proposed six-pillar Environmental Security 
budget for fiscal year (FY)1998, at $4,790.1 million is slightly above 
the FY97 Appropriation of $4,622.4 million and a little bit more below 
the FY96 total of $5,078.3 million. The Environmental Security 
organization is holding it's own, in difficult times, but proposed 
funding for cleanup and technology, in particular, probably is 
insufficient to meet requirements. Pentagon officials seem confident 
that Congress will not significantly cut the environmental budget, but 
unless supporters of the program become more active, it's much more 
likely that Congress will reduce appropriations than increase them.

The decline in Environmental Restoration - the accounts formerly know 
as DERA (the Defense Environmental Restoration Account) - partially 
reflects the announced closure of major bases, moving their cleanup 
budgets to the Base Realignment and Clousure (BRAC) accounts. The FY97 
jump in funding for restoring formerly used defense sites (FUDS) was 
the direct action of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Given the 
large number of FUDS in Alaska (home of Defense Appropriations Chair 
Ted Stevens) and Hawaii (home of ranking committee Democrat Daniel 
Inouye), Congress may hike the FUDS account again.

Overall, Environmental Restoration remains at or around $1.3 billion 
annually largely because Congress has not been willing to fund it at 
higher levels. Based upon anecdotal reports, I believe this amount is 
inadequate to support remedial action projects that are "becoming 
ready" as lenthy remedial investigations and feasibility studies come 
to a conclusion. I consider $1.5 billion a year to be the bare minimum 
that this program needs to move forward effectively.

BRAC environmental spending is proposed to increase in FY98, but it 
will not even reach the FY96 level unless Congress tacks on more money. 
At a number of facilities, future use plans have been delayed by 
inadequate cleanup money. There's a lot of work going on, but more 
money is needed - at least $1 billion a year.

It's hard for me to evaluate the adequacy of funds for compliance, 
conservation, and pollution prevention. Not all pollution prevention 
activity actually costs money, so that budget is a particularly poor 
indicator of the sufficiency of that program. The decline in 
environmental security technology funding is a serious concern, 
however, since this budget could pay back itself many times over if it 
helps develop or prove cost effective technologies for conducting 
cleanup or other environmental protection activity.

In Washington these days, it's apparently difficult to justify 
increases in environmental security funding when the long-term prospect 
for overall national security funding is downward. But as contamination 
from the last several decades of military activity continues to be 
uncovered, the environmental security challenge will continue to grow. 
Holding down the budget puts off or ignores the Defense Department's 
obligation to clean up after itself.

Defense programs such as missile defense and new fighter jets, however, 
are being designed to meet non-existent threats. It's reasonable to 
expect a fall in weapons spending given the fact that the Soviet 
colossus which was used to justify a huge military budget for fifty 
years has all but evaporated.

The environmental security program is repeatedly asked to justify its 
spending by demonstrating the risks of inaction. Military programs, 
unfortunately, don't have to meet the same criteria.