Few of us volunteer to be on the budget committees of our local churches, but whether or not it is our local church, our family budget, or the national budget, where we spend our money says a lot about our priorities.

Take the case of this year's fiscal year 2006 federal budget, as proposed by the Administration. Spending on the environment would be cut drastically. If the budget passes, everyone (especially those with asthma or emphysema) will suffer from less healthy air, drinking water will be less clean, and wild areas will be less protected than in the recent past. While most domestic spending is on the chopping block, environmental spending is to be literally decimated: Programs would be cut by 10.4 percent, compared with about 1 percent for all domestic programs. Environmental spending would be reduced to only $28 billion, a $3.3 billion cut from last year's approved budget and the largest environmental reduction proposed by this President. (Projections for later years indicate still greater cuts.) 1

Of all the environmental programs in the FY2006 budget, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget, once again, suffers the most. EPA funding would be cut by $500 million dollars, to $7.5 billion, a 5.6 percent reduction. 2 Though some EPA programs see slight increases, these are offset by major cuts in water quality programs.

State Water Pollution Programs Cut

The biggest cuts are in funding to help states control water pollution. The federal government provides grants to help communities and states invest in sewage treatment plants, water purification, and other pollution prevention activities. Investments in water pollution control have lagged considerably over the years.

The EPA estimates that more than $450 billion in investments are needed to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act and other water pollution control measures. Despite this, the Administration proposes to cut funding from $2.34 billion to $1.65 billion. 3 That $690 million cut represents a 30 percent decrease from FY2005, a budget that was already cut (from the $2.6 billion appropriated in FY2004). This means that there would be 40 percent less funding available for clean water than just two years ago. 4

In this category, the largest single reduction is a $361-million cut for the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund, which loans states money for sewage treatment. The EPA estimates that the nation actually needs to spend $20 billion a year to solve the nation's water quality problems. 5 This budget asks for less than a tenth of what the EPA says is needed.

Runoff from farms, feedlots, suburban lawns, parking lots, and storm water systems-that mix with sewage-are major sources of water pollution, but this budget cuts funds from the "non-point source" program designed to control these kinds of pollution. 6

The Safe Water Drinking Act Fund actually receives a small increase in its budget — up $7 million, to a total of $850 million. 7 

Superfund: Administration Fails to Fix Broken Trust Fund

One area that should not be seeing an increase in the EPA budget is the Superfund program. Authorized by Congress in 1980, the Superfund program was designed to have the most polluting industries pay for cleaning up toxic waste pollution.  Congress set up a trust fund to receive monies from special taxes on chemicals that cause the worse pollution.  But President Bush has not requested that this tax program continue. As a result, industries that have gained the most from polluting the environment no longer pay for the clean up of toxic waste sites. Instead, the clean ups of the most polluted sites are being paid from general tax revenues, because Superfund went bankrupt in FY2004. The taxpayers, not the polluters, are now paying for clean up of 30 percent of Superfund sites. 8 Lack of designated tax-funding means that the clean ups of all sites have slowed down. The Administration budget proposes $1.38 billion for Superfund clean up in FY2006, drawing money away from other EPA programs such as air, water, and basic research. 9 

The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund Not Used for Clean Ups

The Administration requested $73 million to clean up leaking underground storage tanks. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund took in $265 million last year and has more than $2 billion in reserves. 10 The Administration's failure to use available reserve funds has seen the pace of cleaning up these major sources of drinking water pollution decline every year. This is unacceptable, given that 50 percent of the nation uses groundwater for drinking water. 11

Energy Programs Emphasize Nuclear Power, and Cut Renewables

The Administration's press releases would make it appear that renewable energy is the centerpiece of its FY2006 energy budget requests. Yet renewable sources of energy find their funding cut by $26.7 million (in order to provide funding for the President's hydrogen fuel initiative). Solar programs are cut by more than $1.2 million, and biomass programs are cut by $30.5 million to provide for the increase in the hydrogen program. Energy efficiency programs would be cut by more than $21 million. 12

Funds for nuclear power programs are being increased and redirected to pay for the next generation of taxpayer-supported nuclear power plants. The budget would provide $45 million (up 13.4 percent) for "Generation IV" nuclear reactors (a subsidy for the nuclear power industry). 13 It also provides $56 million (up 12.9 percent) for Nuclear Power 2010, a program dedicated to building new nuclear power reactors by 2010. 14 The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative — which recycles spent nuclear fuel into plutonium — would get $70 million (up 3.8 percent), a questionable funding choice given the U.S. criticism of other nation's research programs in this area. 15 

Nuclear Waste and Nuclear Weapons to Take the Lion's Share of the Energy Budget

The fastest growing part of the Department of Energy budget is for nuclear rearmament. In FY2006, the Administration proposes to increase nuclear weapons funding to $6.63 billion, up 34 percent since Mr. Bush's first budget. Annual spending has increased by $1.9 billion a year in each of the last three years. This means that we now spend more on nuclear weapons than we did at the height of the Cold War (in inflation adjusted dollars). Moreover, the Bush Administration plans to spend another $37 billion on nuclear weapons over the next five years. 16

Efforts to clean up nuclear weapons and to dispose of the nuclear weapons of other states have taken a back seat. The nuclear non-proliferation budget gets a 15 percent increase, to $1.64 billion, but most of this total is for disposing of our own outdated nuclear weapons. Only $712 million of the FY2006 budget is to control nuclear weapons proliferation by other nations or terrorist groups. 17

Buried in the weapons disposal budget is another $400 million nuclear reactor program payment for a multi-billion dollar plutonium-powered plant that is supposed to consume the nuclear weapons material as fuel. 18 

Arctic Drilling Assumed as Part of the Budget

Though Congress has rejected drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) twice since 2001, Mr. Bush's budget again assumes that it will have revenues from Arctic drilling. Further, it attempts to tie some of the funding of renewables to this drilling. Finally, the budget assumes that oil revenues from this activity would be much higher than present oil prices could support. 19

Endangered Species Recovery Funding Cut

The Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with protecting endangered species. While its overall budget increases slightly, endangered species funding is cut by 2 percent, and the most important part of endangered species recovery is to be cut 8 percent, to $5.6 million. 20

Ocean Protections Cut

Despite reports from two national commissions recommending increases in funding of ocean protection programs, the overall budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is to be cut by $333 million (8.5 percent). One-third of U.S. fisheries are dangerously over-fished, yet The National Marine Fishery Service budget is cut by $95 million (a 12 percent reduction) from FY 2005 appropriated levels. 21

The Bible reminds us that to those whom much is given, much is expected. God gave us a marvelous planet with wonderful natural systems. We have an obligation to care for and keep this treasure. The environmental and energy budget for the U.S. in FY2006 does not yet help us keep our obligations to care for the earth. 

Time is another gift of God's to be used wisely. Delaying the necessary clean up of our environment wastes time. In the environment, as in our personal life, when we do something is often as important as whether we do it. Putting off till tomorrow our environmental duties is not good stewardship.  Today's costs for good stewardship seem high; tomorrow's will be higher still, both in terms of dollars and in terms of human health and environmental integrity.

Caring for God's Creation is a moral value: Remind your Members of Congress. They still have to vote on these Administration proposals.

Congressional committees are now submitting to the House and Senate Budget Committees their comments on the Administration's budget for use by the committees in drafting a FY2006 budget resolution. That resolution will be used to set the upper limits of appropriations for various federal agencies. Congress may vote on the Budget Resolution by the end of March. The appropriations bills may not be voted on until the summer or the fall.