Epa: Cuts Could Hit State Hard Most Targeted Funds Earmarked For Safe Drinking Water, Agency Says

A House bill slashing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 1996 budget could have serious repercussions in Washington state, the agency warns.

The bill cuts EPA’s funding from $7.2 billion this year to $4.9 billion in 1996.

Washington stands to lose nearly $55 million, mostly low-interest loans earmarked for safe drinking water, said Steven Herman, the EPA’s assistant compliance administrator.

Environmental groups also criticized this week’s House action.

Some 65 percent of rivers and 49 percent of the lakes in Washington already flunk standards for fishing and swimming, said Bill Roberts, legislative director of the Environmental Defense Fund.

“This is hardly the time to curtail environmental protection,” he said.

The cuts will affect 270 sewage and stormwater runoff projects statewide, resulting in “widespread degradation of water quality,” according to the EPA analysis.

The House bill “swings the wrecking ball at a program that has enjoyed bipartisan support for 25 years,” Herman said in a letter to Michigan Democrat John Dingell.

Rep. George Nethercutt, the Spokane Republican who voted with the GOP majority to cut EPA’s budget, said the agency is using “scare tactics.”

“It’s like the schools saying there’ll be no more football if we don’t pass the school levy,” Nethercutt said. “I don’t believe these reductions diminish strong environmental protection.”

The EPA disagrees, saying a Houseimposed cut of more than 50 percent in its enforcement budget will greatly hamper its compliance efforts.

The agency said several Eastern Washington programs are jeopardized, including:

Superfund cleanup programs at Hanford, the nation’s most polluted nuclear weapons site.

A $774,000 loan to Wilbur, under orders from the state since 1992 to upgrade its sewage treatment system.

Wilbur’s sewage lagoon frequently overflows into Goose Creek, threatening both ground and surface water in the area.

Money for Colville to upgrade its sewage treatment system, which sometimes floods, sending raw sewage into nearby streams and residential areas.

Although Colville will probably receive a $6.1 million loan this year to replace crumbling sewer lines, money for further upgrades may be in jeopardy, said Harlan Elsasser, Colville’s city administrator and engineer.

EPA budget cuts “could have a definite impact on us,” Elsasser said.

After its sewer line upgrade, Colville still needs to overhaul its sewage treatment plant to remove ammonia, chlorine and possible phosphorous.

“From 1998 to 2000, we have a big question hanging over the city: our treatment facility. We don’t know what’s going to be required, and we don’t know how we’re going to pay for it,” Elsasser said.

On Tuesday, President Clinton blasted the House bill, which contains 17 riders restricting the agency’s ability to enforce pollution laws.

He accused the Republicans of “serving special interest lobbyists instead of the American people.”

“The minute this ‘polluters protection act’ hits my desk, I will veto it,” Clinton warned.

Clinton’s attack on the House isn’t fair, Nethercutt said.

“Just because there’s a reduction in spending doesn’t mean we’re hostile to EPA,” Nethercutt said.

But he said the agency had sometimes been “overzealous” in its enforcement efforts.

Clinton probably won’t have to exercise his veto, said Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole.

“I doubt we’ll go that far. The Senate bill will be different from the House bill,” Dole said. , DataTimes