.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
Appropriations for FY2011
Robert Esworthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
David M. Bearden
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Claudia Copeland
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
Jane A. Leggett
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Mary Tiemann
Specialist in Environmental Policy
May 28, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41149
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Summary
The President’s FY2011 budget request, submitted to Congress on February 1, 2010, included
$10.02 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The requested amount is a
decrease below the funding level of $10.29 billion provided in the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2010 (P.L. 111-88). Compared to FY2009, the
President’s FY2011 request for EPA is an increase above the enacted appropriation of $7.64
billion provided in the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY2009 (P.L. 111-8). However, when
including the $7.22 billion in supplemental appropriations for EPA provided in the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5), the total appropriation for the
agency in FY2009 was $14.86 billion, exceeding both the FY2010 enacted appropriations and the
President’s FY2011 request.
Although the President has proposed an overall decrease for EPA relative to the appropriations
enacted for FY2010, the FY2011 budget request includes a variety of decreases and increases in
funding for many of the individual programs and activities funded within the eight appropriations
accounts that fund the agency. Since FY2006, Congress has funded these accounts within the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, noted above with respect to
FY2010 enacted appropriations. In FY2005 and prior fiscal years, Congress appropriated funding
for EPA’s accounts within the former Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies appropriations bill.
For FY2011, the President has requested the largest decrease in funding for EPA within the State
and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account, from $4.97 billion in FY2010 to $4.79 billion in
FY2011. This account contains the largest portion of the agency’s funding among the eight
accounts. The majority of this requested decrease for FY2011 is attributed to a combined $200
million reduction in funding for grants that provide financial assistance to states to help capitalize
Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). Respectively, these funds
finance local wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects in local areas.
The President’s FY2011 request includes $2.0 billion for Clean Water SRF capitalization grants
and $1.29 billion for Drinking Water SRF capitalization grants. These amounts are slightly below
the enacted FY2010 appropriations, but are larger than amounts provided in the Omnibus
Appropriations Act for FY2009. However, when including the supplemental funds provided in
ARRA, both the FY2010 enacted appropriations and the President’s FY2011 request for the SRF
grants are less than the total funding made available for the SRF grants in FY2009. ARRA
provided $4.0 billion in supplemental funds for Clean Water SRF capitalization grants and $2.0
billion in supplemental funds for Drinking Water SRF capitalization grants.
In addition to the adequacy of federal financial assistance for water infrastructure, other
prominent issues that have received attention within the context of EPA appropriations include the
adequacy of funding for climate change research and related activities, cleanup of hazardous
waste sites under the Superfund program, cleanup of less hazardous sites referred to as
brownfields, and grants to assist states in implementing air pollution control requirements.
Funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative established in the FY2010 appropriations, and
funding for the protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and other geographic water
programs, also have received attention. There have been varying levels of interest in funding for
numerous other EPA programs and activities.
Congressional Research Service

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Congressional Action on FY2011 Appropriations ........................................................................ 3
Budget Resolution................................................................................................................. 3
Supplemental Appropriations ................................................................................................ 4
President’s FY2011 Budget Request ............................................................................................ 5
Congressional Priorities (Earmarks) ............................................................................................ 8
Key Funding Issues ..................................................................................................................... 8
Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure....................................................................... 9
Infrastructure Grants/Congressional Priorities (Earmarks) ................................................... 10
Cleanup of Superfund Sites ................................................................................................. 11
Cleanup Progress .......................................................................................................... 13
Superfund Taxes ........................................................................................................... 13
Brownfields ........................................................................................................................ 14
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Program ......................................................... 15
Air Quality.......................................................................................................................... 17
Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Reduction........................................................................ 21
Geographic/Ecosystem Programs ........................................................................................ 24
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative ................................................................................. 26
Chesapeake Bay and Mississippi River Basin................................................................ 26

Figures
Figure 1. EPA FY2011 President’s Request by Appropriations Account (Before Transfers
Between Accounts) .................................................................................................................. 7
Figure B-1. EPA Discretionary Budget Authority FY1976-FY2010 and FY2011
President’s Request: Adjusted and Not Adjusted for Inflation ................................................. 31

Tables
Table 1. Legislative Status of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations for FY2011 ...................................................................................................... 3
Table 2. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency: FY2009-FY2010
Enacted and the President’s FY2011 Request ........................................................................... 6
Table 3. Appropriations for Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)
Capitalization Grants: FY2009 and FY2010 Enacted, and President’s FY2011 Request ......... 10
Table 4. Appropriations for the Hazardous Substance Superfund Account: FY2009 and
FY2010 Enacted, and the President’s FY2011 Request ........................................................... 12
Table 5. Appropriations for EPA’s Brownfields Program: FY2009 and FY2010 Enacted,
and the President’s FY2011 Request....................................................................................... 15
Table 6. Appropriations for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program
Account: FY2009-FY2010 Enacted, and the FY2011 President’s Request .............................. 17
Congressional Research Service

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Table 7. Appropriations for Selected EPA Air Quality Research and Implementation
Activities by Account: FY2009 and FY2010 Enacted, and the President’s FY2011
Request .................................................................................................................................. 20
Table 8. Appropriations for EPA Climate Change Protection and Research: FY2009-
FY2010 Enacted, and the President’s FY2011 Request ........................................................... 23
Table 9. Appropriations for Selected Geographic/Ecosystem Programs: FY2009 and
FY2010 Enacted, and the President’s FY2011 Request ........................................................... 25
Table A-1. EPA’s Eight Appropriations Accounts....................................................................... 28

Appendixes
Appendix A. Descriptions of EPA’s Eight Appropriations Accounts ........................................... 28
Appendix B. Historical Funding Trends..................................................................................... 30

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 31

Congressional Research Service

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Introduction
On February 1, 2010, the President submitted his FY2011 budget request to Congress, including
$10.02 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The President’s request is 2.6%
less than the funding level of $10.29 billion enacted by Congress in the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2010 (P.L. 111-88). In comparison to historical
funding levels, the President’s FY2011 request for EPA is greater than appropriations enacted by
Congress in most prior fiscal years since the agency was established in FY1970. (See Appendix
B for readily available information on historical funding trends since FY1976.) House and Senate
appropriations committees and various authorizing committees have held hearings to consider the
President’s FY2011 budget request for EPA; however, no bill to fund Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies for FY2011 has been introduced to date. Congress continues to debate a variety
of funding and policy issues during consideration of the FY2011 Interior appropriations.1
EPA was established in 1970 to consolidate federal pollution control responsibilities that had been
divided among several federal agencies. EPA’s responsibilities grew significantly as Congress
enacted an increasing number of environmental laws as well as major amendments to these
statutes. Among the agency’s primary responsibilities are the regulation of air quality, water
quality, pesticides, and toxic substances; the management and disposal of solid and hazardous
wastes; and the cleanup of environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants to assist states
and local governments in complying with federal requirements to control pollution.
Congress funds EPA programs and activities within the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill.2 The authorization of appropriations for many of the programs and
activities administered by EPA has expired, but Congress has continued to fund them through the
appropriations process. Although House and Senate rules generally do not allow the appropriation
of funding that has not been authorized, these rules are subject to points of order and are not self-
enforcing. Congress may appropriate funding for a program or activity for which the
authorization of appropriations has expired, if no Member raises a point of order, or the rules are
waived for consideration of a particular bill. Congress typically has done so to continue the
appropriation of funding for EPA programs and activities for which the authorization of
appropriations has expired.3
EPA’s funding over the long term generally has reflected an increase in overall appropriations to
fulfill a rising number of statutory responsibilities to carry out the agency’s primary mission of
protecting human health and the environment. Without adjusting for inflation, appropriations

1 For an overview of the FY2011 Interior et al appropriations, including analysis of key funding issues for the major
agencies under these appropriations, see CRS Report R41258, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011
Appropriations, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
2 During the 109th Congress, EPA’s funding was moved from the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations
Subcommittees on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies to the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittees beginning with the FY2006 appropriations. This
change resulted from the abolition of the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Veterans Affairs,
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies.
3 As amended, Section 202(e)(3) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to report to Congress annually on the enacted appropriations for individual
programs and activities for which the authorization of appropriations has expired, and individual programs and
activities for which the authorization of appropriations is set to expire in the current fiscal year. The most recent version
of this report is available on CBO’s website at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10882.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

enacted for EPA have risen from about $1.0 billion when the agency was established in FY1970
to a peak level of $14.86 billion in FY2009. This peak funding level included both the $7.64
billion in “regular” fiscal year appropriations provided in the Omnibus Appropriations Act for
FY2009 (P.L. 111-8), and the $7.22 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations provided in
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5), often referred to as
the “economic stimulus package.”
In general, the term appropriations used in this report refers to total discretionary funds made
available to EPA for obligation, including regular fiscal year and emergency supplemental
appropriations, as well as any rescissions, transfers, and deferrals in a particular fiscal year, but
excludes permanent or mandatory appropriations that are not subject to the annual appropriations
process. This latter category of funding constitutes a very small portion of EPA’s funding. The
vast majority of the agency’s funding consists of discretionary appropriations.
Funding increases and decreases noted in this report generally are calculated based on
comparisons between the funding levels requested by the President for FY2011, and the FY2010
appropriations provided in P.L. 111-88 (and any supplemental appropriations or other
adjustments; see discussion under “Congressional Action on FY2011 Appropriations,” which
follows). This report also includes information on funding levels enacted for FY2009 for certain
EPA programs and activities, including both the regular fiscal year appropriations provided in P.L.
111-8 and the emergency supplemental appropriations provided in P.L. 111-5, the latter of which
is referred to throughout this report as ARRA or Recovery Act funding. With the exception of the
historical funding table in Appendix B, the President’s FY2011 request and the enacted
appropriations for prior fiscal years presented in this report have not been adjusted for inflation.
In some cases, small increases above the prior year funding level may reflect a decrease in real
dollar values when adjusted for inflation.
The amounts in this report presented for the President’s FY2011 budget request are as reported in
EPA’s FY2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification (referred to throughout
this report as the EPA FY2011 budget justification),4 and the President’s Budget of the United
States Government, Fiscal Year 2011, issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).5
The House Committee on Appropriations is the primary source for enacted amounts presented for
FY2010 unless specified otherwise in the funding tables presented throughout the report. FY2009
appropriations, including ARRA funding, are as reported in the conference report (H.Rept. 111-
316) accompanying the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
FY2010 (P.L. 111-88; H.R. 2996).
The following sections of this report provide a brief overview of the President’s FY2011 budget
request for EPA, discussion of congressional action on FY2011 appropriations in the 111th
Congress, and examination of funding levels and relevant issues for selected EPA programs and
activities that have received more prominent attention. Please note that appropriations are
complex, and that accordingly not all issues are summarized in this report. For example, OMB’s
budget documentation and EPA’s budget justification number more than 1,000 pages and present
an array of funding, programmatic, and legislative proposals for congressional consideration.

4 EPA’s FY2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, and other related agency budget
documents are available at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget.
5 The multi-volume set of the President’s Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011, is available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Further, the appropriations bills and accompanying committee reports identify funding levels for
numerous programs, activities, and sub-activities that are beyond the scope of this report, and the
committee reports may provide specific direction to the agency in terms of how the funds are to
be spent to implement a certain activity.
Appendix A briefly describes the scope of the purpose and activities funded within each of EPA’s
eight statutory appropriations accounts. Appendix B depicts historical funding trends for the
agency, based on information readily available from OMB back to FY1976.
Congressional Action on FY2011 Appropriations
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees and various authorizing committees have held
hearings to consider the President’s FY2011 budget request for EPA, but no bill to fund Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies for FY2011 has been introduced to date. As this report is
updated, Table 1 will track developments involving House and Senate Appropriations Committee
and floor actions on FY2011 appropriations for EPA within the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill.
Table 1. Legislative Status of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations for FY2011
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House Senate Law










Notes: The House Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations held a hearing
on the FY2011 Budget for EPA on February 24, 2010; the Senate Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations held a hearing on the FY2011 Budget for EPA on March 3, 2010.
Budget Resolution
To guide the appropriation process, the House and Senate also typically prepare a concurrent
resolution on the federal budget, which identifies budget authority and outlays by functional
categories.6 The Natural Resource and Environment Function (Budget Function 300) outlines
funding for several federal land management agencies and EPA. Although the resolution provides
an internal congressional framework for the consideration of appropriations, the resolution is not
signed into law, and the funding levels therefore are nonbinding. Rather, funding levels for
individual agencies and their programs and activities are set through the appropriations process.
The Senate Budget Committee reported S.Con.Res. 60 to the Senate on April 26, 2010. No
resolution had been reported by the House Budget Committee at the time this report was updated.
This report is intended to track and provide analysis of key funding issues regarding EPA
appropriations for FY2011, but not action on the concurrent resolution on the FY2011 federal
budget.

6 See CRS Report R40113, Federal Budget Process Reform in the 111th Congress: A Brief Overview, by Robert Keith;
and CRS Report RL30297, Congressional Budget Resolutions: Historical Information, by Bill Heniff Jr. and Justin
Murray.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Supplemental Appropriations
Congress has relied on supplemental appropriations to provide additional funds for a fiscal year
already underway since the second session of the 1st Congress. Supplemental appropriations
provide additional funding to an agency during the course of a fiscal year for programs and
activities that are considered too urgent to wait until next year’s budget.7
As passed in the Senate on May 27, 2010, Title I of H.R. 4899, the Supplemental Appropriations
Act, 2010, would provide several federal agencies and departments with $58.8 billion in
emergency supplemental appropriations, primarily for ongoing military operations, and natural
disaster relief.8 Title II of H.R. 4899 would provide $68.0 million in additional supplemental
appropriations for FY2010 for oil spill response and recovery efforts in the Gulf of Mexico
associated with the Deepwater Horizon incident, and would authorize additional monies from the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for U.S. Coast Guard response activities. Of these funds in Title II,
the bill as reported includes $2.0 million for EPA within the Science and Technology (S&T)
appropriations account that the Administration had requested for research of the potential long-
term “human and environmental risks and impacts from the releases of crude oil, and the
application of chemical dispersants and other measures to mitigate these releases.” The bill
directs EPA to use the $2.0 million to carry out this research in coordination with the Departments
of the Interior, and Commerce. This type of coordination is typically executed through a
cooperative agreement among the departments or agencies involved. H.R. 4899 (the Disaster
Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010) as passed in the House on March 24, 2010,9 prior to the
events in the Gulf of Mexico, did not include similar provisions regarding these events. The
House Appropriations Committee is expected to markup a version of the 2010 supplemental
sometime after Congress returns from recess in June.10
This report will continue to track action on H.R. 4899, as it may impact comparisons between the
FY2010 and the FY2011 appropriations.

7 See CRS Report RL33134, Supplemental Appropriations: Trends and Budgetary Impacts Since 1981, by Thomas L.
Hungerford.
8 Reported to the Senate May 14, 2010, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by the Senate Appropriations
Committee and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar, S.Rept. 111-188, Congressional Record, pp. S3782, S3783.
See CRS Report R41232, FY2010 Supplemental for Wars, Disaster Assistance, Haiti Relief, and Court Cases,
coordinated by Amy Belasco.
9 Congressional Record, p. H2311.
10 House Committee on Appropriations, http://appropriations.house.gov/.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

President’s FY2011 Budget Request
The $10.02 billion for EPA included in the President’s FY2011 budget request is $270 million
(2.6%) less than the FY2010 appropriations of $10.29 billion provided in P.L. 111-88. The
President’s request is $2.38 billion (31%) more than the FY2009 regular fiscal year
appropriations of $7.64 billion provided in P.L. 111-8. However, including the emergency
supplemental appropriations of $7.22 billion provided in ARRA, Congress appropriated a total of
$14.86 billion for EPA in FY2009,11 exceeding both the FY2010 enacted appropriations and the
President’s FY2011 request.
Since FY1996, EPA’s appropriations have been requested by the Administration and appropriated
by Congress within eight statutory appropriations accounts (see detailed descriptions of the
appropriations accounts in Appendix A).12 Table 2 identifies the amounts that the President has
requested for EPA for FY2011, compared to the appropriations enacted by Congress for FY2010
and FY2009, for the eight appropriations accounts. The table identifies transfers of funds between
these accounts, and funding levels for several program areas within certain accounts that have
received more prominent attention.

11 ARRA requires EPA to obligate the FY2009 supplemental appropriations by the end of FY2010, whereas regular
fiscal year appropriations for EPA are usually available until expended by the agency. For the status of EPA’s
obligation of ARRA funds, see the agency’s website: http://www.epa.gov/recovery.
12 Prior to FY1996, Congress appropriated funding for EPA under a different account structure, making it difficult to
equitably compare past funding levels by account over the history of the agency.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Table 2. Appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency:
FY2009-FY2010 Enacted and the President’s FY2011 Request
($ in millions)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
Omnibus
ARRA
Total
Enacted
FY2011
EPA Appropriation Accounts
P.L. 111-8
P.L. 111-5
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
Request
Science and Technology





—Base Appropriations
$790.1
$0.0
$790.1
$846.1
$846.7
—Transfer in from Superfund
$26.4
$0.0
$26.4
$26.8
$24.5
Science and Technology Total
$816.5
$0.0
$816.5
$872.9
$871.2
Environmental Programs and Management
$2,392.1
$0.0
$2,392.1
$2,993.8
$2,891.0
Office of Inspector General





—Base Appropriations
$44.8
$20.0
$64.8
$44.8
$45.6
—Transfer in from Superfund
$10.0
$0.0
$10.0
$10.0
$10.2
Office of Inspector General Total
$54.8
$20.0
$74.8
$54.8
$55.8
Buildings & Facilities
$35.0
$0.0
$35.0
$37.0
$40.0
Hazardous Substance Superfund (before transfers)
$1,285.0
$600.0
$1,885.0
$1,306.5
$1,293.1
—Transfer out to Office of Inspector General
$10.0
$0.0
$10.0
$10.0
$10.2
—Transfer out to Science and Technology
$26.4
$0.0
$26.4
$26.8
$24.5
Hazardous Substance Superfund (after transfers)
$1,248.6
$600.0
$1,848.6
$1,269.7
$1,258.4
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program
$112.6
$200.0
$312.6
$113.1
$113.2
Oil Spill Response
$17.7
$0.0
$17.7
$18.4
$18.5
State and Tribal Assistance Grants





—Clean Water State Revolving Fund
$689.1
$4,000.0
$4,689.1
$2,100.0
$2,000.0
—Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
$829.0
$2,000.0
$2,829.0
$1,387.0
$1,287.0
—Special Project Grants
$145.0
$0.0
$145.0
$156.8
$0.0
—Categorical Grants
$1,094.9 $0.0
$1,094.9
$1,116.4
$1,276.6
—Brownfields Section 104(k) Grants
$97.0
$100.0
$197.0
$100.0
$138.3
—Diesel Emission Reduction Grants
$60.0 $300.0 $360.0 $60.0 $60.0
—Other State and Tribal Assistance Grants
$53.5 $0.0 $53.5 $50.0
$20.0
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Total
$2,968.5
$6,400.0
$9,368.5
$4,970.2
$4,781.9
Rescissions (various EPA accounts)a -$10.0
$0.0
-$10.0
-$40.0
-$10.0
Total EPA Accounts
$7,635.7
$7,220.0
$14,855.7
$10,289.9
$10,020.0
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2009 and FY2010 enacted appropriations are from the
conference report to accompany the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2010 (H.R.
2996, H.Rept. 111-316, pp. 240–244). President’s FY2011 request is from EPA’s FY2011 Annual Performance Plan and
congressional Justification, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget. “Omnibus” refers to Omnibus Appropriations Act for
FY2009 (P.L. 111-8); “ARRA” refers to American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). Numbers may
not add due to rounding.
a.
The rescissions are from unobligated balances from funds appropriated in prior years, and made available for
expenditure in a later year. In effect, these “rescissions” increase the availability of funds for expenditure by
the agency in the years in which they are applied, functioning as an offset to new appropriations by Congress.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Figure 1 presents the percentage allocation of the total President’s FY2011 budget request for
EPA among the agency’s eight appropriations accounts.
Figure 1. EPA FY2011 President’s Request by Appropriations Account
(Before Transfers Between Accounts)
Total FY2011 Request = $10.02 billion
12.9%
1.1%
Hazardous
Leaking
0.4%
Substance
Underground
Building &
Superfund
Storage Tank
Facilities
$1.29 billion
Program
$40.0 million
$113.2 million
28.9%
47.7%
Environmental
State & Tribal
Programs &
Assistance Grant
Management
(STAG)
$2.89 bil ion
$4.78 bil ion
0.2%
0.5%
Oil Spill Response
Inspector General
$18.5 million
$45.6 million
8.4%
Science &
Technology
$846.7 million

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data for the President’s FY2011 request from
EPA’s FY2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget.
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
While Congress appropriates funding for EPA within the eight accounts noted above, the agency’s
budget justification also presents the President’s budget request organized by performance
goals.13 EPA presented its FY2011 budget justification according to five performance goals.

13 EPA’s presentation by the goals is intended to comply with certain requirements of the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA; P.L. 103-62). EPA reduced its number of performance goals from 10 to 5 beginning with
its FY2005 budget justification. Related to these goals, the Administration also uses OMB’s Performance Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) to measure the performance of federal programs. For further discussion of the PART, see CRS
Report RS21416, The President’s Management Agenda: A Brief Introduction.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Congressional Priorities (Earmarks)
The President’s FY2011 budget request does not include funding for individual projects,
locations, or institutions (often referred to as “earmarked funding”) that Congress designated
within EPA’s appropriations for FY2010. This is consistent with past administrations’ budget
requests, which typically do not reflect such congressional priorities. While there is no consensus
on a single earmark definition among all practitioners and observers of the appropriations
process, the Senate and House both in 2007 adopted a definition for purposes of implementing
new earmark transparency requirements in their respective chambers.14 In the House rule, such a
funding item is referred to as a congressional earmark (or earmark), while, in the Senate rule, it
is referred to as a congressionally-directed spending item (or spending item).15
P.L. 111-88 provided $179.4 million in such designated funding within EPA’s FY2010
appropriations, compared to $167.9 million in such designated funding in FY2009. Under the
disclosure rules, the conference report on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for FY2010 (H.R. 2996, H.Rept. 111-316) identified this type of funding for
designated recipients within three accounts: $5.7 million within the Science and Technology
(S&T) account, $16.9 million within the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM)
account, and $156.8 million within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account. (See
the “Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure” section of this report for additional
discussion regarding STAG amounts.) Unlike much of EPA’s grant funding, such congressional
designation of funds traditionally has been awarded noncompetitively to the specified recipients.
Key Funding Issues
Much of the attention on EPA’s appropriations for FY2011 has initially focused on federal
financial assistance for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects,16 environmental
cleanup, grants to assist states in implementing air pollution control requirements, and climate
change research and related activities. There also has been interest in funding for geographic-
specific initiatives, including the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative introduced in the FY2010
Interior Appropriations (P.L. 111-88), efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay,17 and new funding
for the Mississippi River Basin.

14 See Senate Rule XLIV and House Rule XXI, clause 9.
15 In both cases, this refers to: “a provision [in a measure or conference report] or report language included primarily at
the request of a [Representative or] Senator providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of
discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant,
loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific state, locality or Congressional district,
other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.” Senate Rule XLIV and
House Rule XXI, clause 9.
16 See CRS Report 96-647, Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations, by Claudia Copeland.
17 See Executive Order 13508: Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, May 12, 2009, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
presdocs/2009/DCPD-200900352.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure18
The President’s FY2011 budget request includes a total of $3.29 billion for capitalization grants
for the Clean Water and the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) within the STAG
account.19 SRF funding is used for local wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects,
such as construction of and modifications to municipal sewage treatment plants and drinking
water treatment plants, to facilitate compliance with the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking
Water Act, respectively.20
The FY2011 request includes $2.0 billion for Clean Water SRF capitalization grants and $1.29
billion for Drinking Water SRF capitalization grants. As shown in Table 3, these amounts are
slightly below levels provided in FY2010 appropriations, but are larger than amounts in the
regular FY2009 appropriations.21 As shown in the table, the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the ARRA, or Recovery Act) also provided $4.0 billion in
supplemental funds for Clean Water SRF capitalization grants and $2.0 billion in supplemental
funds for Drinking Water SRF capitalization grants.
EPA allocates annual appropriations for these capitalization grants among the states according to
an existing formula detailed in the Clean Water Act. Grants under the Safe Drinking Water Act are
allocated to states based on the results of a needs survey conducted by states. Under both SRF
programs states must provide 20% matching funds in order to receive the federal funds.22 States
combine their matching funds with the federal monies to capitalize their SRFs, which they use to
issue low-interest or no interest loans to finance local water infrastructure projects in
communities. The recipients must repay the loan to the issuing state. Monies that states collect
from the repayment of these loans are deposited back into the SRFs to provide capital for issuing
new loans. In this sense, the SRFs are intended to be “revolving” and eventually self-sustaining
over the long term.
The extent of federal assistance still needed to help states maintain sufficient capital in their SRFs
to finance projects has been an ongoing issue. Some have cited estimates of hundreds of billions
of dollars in long-term needs among communities, and the tightening of federal water quality
requirements over time, as reasons for maintaining or increasing the level of federal assistance.

18 This section was written by Claudia Copeland, Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
19 The STAG account also includes funds to support state and tribal “categorical” grant programs. States and tribes use
these grants to support the day-to-day implementation of environmental laws, such as monitoring, permitting and
standard setting, training, and other pollution control and prevention activities. Categorical grants also assist
multimedia projects such as pollution prevention incentive grants, and pesticides and toxic substances enforcement.
The President’s budget requests $1.3 billion for these grants, compared with $1.1 billion in FY2010 appropriations.
20 See CRS Report 96-647, Water Infrastructure Financing: History of EPA Appropriations, by Claudia Copeland, and
CRS Report RS22037, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF): Program Overview and Issues, by Mary
Tiemann.
21 The FY2011 request is also larger than the level provided in the recent past fiscal years. By comparison, the average
annual total funding for the two SRF programs during the 12-year period prior to FY2009 was $2.0 billion.
22 The stimulus law waived the 20% matching funds requirement, and allowed states to issue negative interest loans,
forgive loan principal, and award grants rather than loans. See CRS Report R40216, Water Infrastructure Funding in
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, by Claudia Copeland et al.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Table 3. Appropriations for Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(SRF) Capitalization Grants: FY2009 and FY2010 Enacted,
and President’s FY2011 Request
(millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
Omnibus
ARRA
Total
Enacted
FY2011
SRF
P.L. 111-8
P.L. 111-5
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
Request
Clean Water
$689.1
$4,000.0
$4,689.1
$2,100.0
$2,000.0
Drinking Water
$829.0
$2,000.0
$2,829.0
$1,387.0
$1,287.0
Total SRF Appropriations
$1,518.1
$6,000.0
$7,518.1
$3,487.0
$3,287.0
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2009 and FY2010 Enacted appropriations are from
the conference report to accompany the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
FY2010 (H.R. 2996, H.Rept. 111-316, pp. 243–244). President’s FY2011 request is from EPA’s FY2011 Annual
Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget. Numbers may not add due to
rounding.
Notes: “Omnibus” refers to the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY2009 (P.L. 111-8); “ARRA” refers to the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5).
The adequacy of federal funding levels for both SRFs has been contentious. For the Clean Water
SRF, prior to FY2010, Congress had appropriated significantly more funding than the
Administration requested. There has been less disagreement between Congress and the
Administration about the appropriate funding level for the Drinking Water SRF. Some Members
have advocated substantial increases for both SRFs in response to local water infrastructure needs
generally, and more specifically, to help communities comply with new water quality
requirements and new standards for drinking water contaminants (e.g., arsenic and radium).
Capital needs for water infrastructure, as demonstrated in EPA-state surveys, remain high. EPA
issued its most recent needs survey for wastewater treatment facilities in 2008, estimating
remaining needs at a total of $203 billion nationwide.23 EPA’s latest drinking water needs survey,
released in 2009, estimated that public drinking water systems need to invest $335 billion over 20
years.24 Some stakeholder groups have projected higher funding needs than those estimated by
EPA. For example, in 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), a coalition of state,
municipal, environmental and labor groups, issued a report entitled, Clean and Safe Water for the
21st Century. This report estimated total wastewater and drinking water capital needs to be $940
billion over the next 20 years, and even more if operation and maintenance needs (which
currently are not eligible for federal assistance) are included.
Infrastructure Grants/Congressional Priorities (Earmarks)
Although the SRF grants represent the bulk of EPA funding for water infrastructure, Congress
also has supported these needs through congressionally directed funding for “special project
grants” in the STAG account. The FY2010 Interior appropriations law included $156.8 million

23U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004:Report to Congress, January 2008,
http://www.epa.gov/cwns/2004rtc/2004rtc.pdf.
24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment, Fourth Report
to Congress, February 2009, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/needssurvey/pdfs/2007/report_needssurvey_2007.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

for 317 special project grants distributed to individual communities across the United States.25
The President’s FY2011 budget did not include funding for congressionally directed special
projects, which is consistent with past administrations’ budgets.
Whereas communities compete for loan funds provided through the SRFs, which must be repaid
to states, earmarked funding is awarded noncompetitively as grants that require matching funds,
but not repayment. Similar to previous fiscal year appropriations, the FY2010 Interior
appropriations (P.L. 111-88) limited the amount of grants earmarked for water infrastructure to
55% of a project’s total cost, requiring the recipient to provide a 45% match. Whether the needs
of these communities should be met with SRF loan monies or grant assistance has become
controversial.26
While the President’s FY2011 budget requested no funds for congressionally designated special
projects, it does include funding for water infrastructure grants in two geographic-specific areas
that reflect Administration priorities:
• $10.0 million for the construction of wastewater and drinking water facilities in
Alaska Native Villages, compared to $13.0 million for FY2010 and the $18.5
million in FY2009; and
• $10.0 million for wastewater infrastructure projects along the U.S./Mexico
border, compared to $17.0 million for FY2010, and $20.0 million for FY2009.
Cleanup of Superfund Sites27
As amended, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA) established EPA’s Superfund program to enforce the liability of “potentially
responsible parties” who caused contamination at a site, or who have or had a certain connection
to that site.28 If the parties cannot be found or cannot pay, the Superfund program may pay for the
cleanup of a site under a cost-share agreement with the state in which the site is located. Sites at
which there are no viable parties to assume responsibility for the cleanup are referred to as
“orphan” sites. EPA’s Hazardous Substance Superfund account funds the Superfund program. The
President has requested just over $1.29 billion for the Superfund account in FY2011 (prior to
transfers to other EPA accounts). The request is less than the FY2010 appropriation of $1.31
billion, but more than the FY2009 regular appropriation of nearly $1.29 billion. Funding levels
for the Superfund account have remained fairly similar to these amounts over the past decade (not
accounting for inflation), with the exception of a supplemental appropriation of $600.0 million
for FY2009 provided in the Recovery Act.

25 H.Rept. 111-316 on H.R. 2996, pp. 118–127.
26 See CRS Report RL32201, Water Infrastructure Projects Designated in EPA Appropriations: Trends and Policy
Implications, by Claudia Copeland, and CRS Report RL32201, Water Infrastructure Projects Designated in EPA
Appropriations: Trends and Policy Implications, by Claudia Copeland.
27 This section was written by David M. Bearden, Specialist in Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
28 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et. seq. For more information on EPA’s cleanup and enforcement authorities under this statute, see
CRS Report R41039, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of
Superfund Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act, by David M. Bearden.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Most of the funding within the Superfund account is allocated to the cleanup of sites that EPA has
placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).29 Funding for “remedial” and “removal” actions is
used to accomplish the physical cleanup of contamination.30 The remainder is used for
enforcement against the potentially responsible parties to compel them to perform or pay for
cleanup, oversight of the cleanup of federal facilities by other agencies, research of more effective
cleanup methods, EPA’s operational expenses, and other support activities. Funding is transferred
from the Superfund account to EPA’s Science and Technology account to carry out the agency’s
research activities related to cleanup. Funding also is transferred from the Superfund account to
EPA’s Office of Inspector General account for independent auditing, investigation, and evaluation
of the performance of the Superfund program. Some funding also is provided for related
homeland security activities of EPA. Table 4 compares the President’s FY2011 request for each
of these program activities to the appropriations enacted for FY2009 and FY2010.
Table 4. Appropriations for the Hazardous Substance Superfund Account:
FY2009 and FY2010 Enacted, and the President’s FY2011 Request
(millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
Program Area and Transfers to
Omnibus
ARRA
Total
Enacted
FY2011
Other EPA Accounts
P.L. 111-8
P.L. 111-5
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
Request
Remedial $605.0
$600.0
$1,205.0
$605.4
$605.4
Emergency Response and Removal
$195.0
$0.0
$195.0
$202.3
$202.8
Federal Facilities (Oversight)
$31.3
$0.0
$31.3
$32.1
$31.5
Enforcement $187.8
$0.0
$187.8
$195.4
$198.9
Operations and Administration
$134.6
$0.0
$134.6
$139.2
$138.3
Homeland Security
$56.6
$0.0
$56.6
$56.5
$43.5
Other Program Areas
$74.7
$0.0
$74.7
$75.5
$72.6
Total Superfund Account
$1,285.0
$600.0
$1,885.0
$1,306.5
$1,293.1
Transfer to Science and Technology
-$26.4
$0.0
-$26.4
-$26.8
-$24.5
Transfer to Office of Inspector General
-$10.0
$0.0
-$10.0
-$10.0
-$10.2
Superfund Account After Transfers
$1,248.6
$600.0
$1,848.6
$1,269.7
$1,258.4
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2009 enacted appropriations are from the
conference report to accompany the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
FY2010 (H.R. 2996, H.Rept. 111-316, p. 242). President’s FY2011 request is from EPA’s FY2011 Annual
Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, p. 6 and pp. 942–945, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget.
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Note: “Omnibus” refers to the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY2009 (P.L. 111-8); “ARRA” refers to the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5).

29 For information on the number of sites that EPA has placed on the NPL over time and their listing status, see the
Superfund Program website: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/index.htm.
30 CERCLA authorizes two types of response actions: “remedial” actions that are intended to provide a more permanent
solution to prevent potentially harmful exposure to contamination, and “removal” actions that are intended to respond
to more immediate risks and address emergency situations. In some cases, a preceding removal action may contribute
to achieving the objectives of a longer-term remedial action.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Cleanup Progress
Debate over the sufficiency of funding for the Superfund program has centered primarily around
the pace and adequacy of cleanup at NPL sites. In its FY2011 budget justification, EPA
introduced a new performance measure, “Number of Remedial Action Projects Completed,”31 to
track cleanup progress on operable units32 of NPL sites on an individual project basis. This new
measure is intended to augment the long-standing measure of “Construction Completion,” which
tracks cleanup progress on a site-wide basis.33 Over time, there has been some concern that the
number of Construction Completions alone may not necessarily be a complete indicator of
progress at sites where the construction of many remedial actions may be finished. Generally, the
larger a site and the greater the number of operable units with more complex cleanup challenges,
the slower the pace in attaining Construction Completion for the entire site.
The annual number of Construction Completions has been declining for more than a decade, from
a high of 88 in FY1998 to 20 in FY2009.34 This overall downward trend has raised questions as to
whether funding levels for the Superfund program have been adequate to maintain consistent
cleanup progress to ensure protection of human health and the environment. In conjunction with
this trend, some have observed that the relatively steady funding levels over the past decade have
resulted in fewer resources over time because of inflation. Based on the President’s budget
request, EPA has established a target of 25 Construction Completions in FY2011.35 Using its new
measure, EPA also has set a target of 103 individual remedial project completions in FY2011 to
capture progress at sites that may not be designated as Construction Complete site-wide.36
Superfund Taxes
A desire by some for greater resources to enhance cleanup progress has generated interest in
reinstating the dedicated taxes on industry that once helped to finance the Superfund program.
The President’s FY2011 budget request includes a proposal to reinstate these taxes through
FY2020.37 Dedicated excise taxes on the sale of petroleum and chemical feedstocks, and a special
environmental tax on corporate income historically provided the majority of funding for the
Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund. This fund finances discretionary appropriations to
the Superfund account to carry out the Superfund program. The authority to collect these taxes
expired on December 31, 1995. As the remaining revenues were expended over time, Congress
has increased the contribution of tax revenues from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury to the

31 EPA, FY2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, p. 647, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget.
32 Many sites contain multiple discrete areas of differing types of contamination that EPA has divided into operable
units to administer the cleanup. One unit may necessitate a different type of remedial action than another unit on the
same site, depending on the nature of the contamination and the relative risks to human health and the environment.
33 A Construction Complete designation means any physical construction that may be necessary to implement all of the
remedial actions at an entire site are complete. Sites at which the remedial actions do not involve construction, and
deleted sites where the cleanup goals have been achieved, also are designated as Construction Complete.
34 The number of Construction Completions from FY1993 through FY2009, and so far in FY2010, is available on the
Superfund program website: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplfy.htm.
35 EPA, FY2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, p. 649.
36 Ibid., p. 649.
37 OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government for FY2011, “Analytical Perspectives,” p. 175 and p. 185.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Superfund Trust Fund, in an effort to make up for the shortfall in revenues from the expired
industry taxes.38
Reinstatement of Superfund taxes would be subject to the enactment of reauthorizing legislation.
In the 111th Congress, at least three bills (H.R. 564, H.R. 832, and S. 3164) have been introduced
to reauthorize all three Superfund taxes at the same rates that applied at the time of their
expiration. A third bill (S. 3125) would reauthorize the Superfund taxes on petroleum and
chemical feedstocks at higher rates, but would not reinstate the Superfund tax on corporate
income. Whether to reinstate Superfund taxes has been a long-standing controversy for nearly 15
years, involving numerous “fairness” issues. Supporters of the taxes maintain that these revenues
to support the Superfund program are necessary to ensure that polluters pay for the cleanup of
contamination they have caused or may cause in the future, often referred to as the “polluter pays
principle.” In this sense, some have characterized Superfund taxes as an “insurance plan” for the
public that is intended to provide resources for cleanup in the event that businesses may become
bankrupt and cannot be pursued for their liability. On the other hand, opponents of the taxes have
observed that not all of the individual businesses subject to the tax may have been involved in
activities that resulted in contamination, and that the actual polluters are paying for the cleanup of
most Superfund sites through enforcement actions under the liability provisions of CERCLA.
Brownfields39
EPA also administers a Brownfields program to provide financial assistance for the cleanup of
less hazardous sites that are not addressed under the Superfund program, but at which the known
or suspected presence of contamination may present an impediment to economic redevelopment.
Consistent with liability under CERCLA, potentially responsible parties at these sites are not
eligible for this financial assistance, as they are to be held accountable for the cleanup costs. In
effect, the Brownfields program is intended to provide financial assistance for “orphan” sites not
listed on the NPL, at which the threat of contamination may be an obstacle to redevelopment.40
The President has requested a total of $215.1 million for EPA’s Brownfields program in FY2011.
The request is an increase above the FY2010 appropriation of $173.6 million and the FY2009
Omnibus appropriation of $169.5 million, but is less than the total FY2009 appropriation of
$269.5 million for the program (including the supplemental appropriation of $100.0 million
provided in the Recovery Act). Table 5 compares the President’s FY2011 request to the
appropriations enacted for FY2009 and FY2010 by EPA account for the two types of grants
awarded under EPA’s Brownfields program, and presents a breakout of the administrative
expenses of EPA to administer the grant awards.

38 Congress now finances the Superfund Trust Fund mostly with general Treasury revenues, but other sources continue
to contribute some revenue, including interest on the balance of the trust fund, fines and penalties collected for
violations of cleanup requirements, and recovery of cleanup costs from the potentially responsible parties. Although the
dedicated industry taxes have expired, it should be noted that industry has continued to help finance the Superfund
Trust Fund through corporate income taxes that contribute to general Treasury revenues, along with individual income
taxes and other miscellaneous receipts and collections deposited into the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury.
39 This section was written by David M. Bearden, Specialist in Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
40 For more information, see CRS Report RS22965, The Environmental Protection Agency’s Brownfields Program:
Scope, Authorities, and Implementation, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Table 5. Appropriations for EPA’s Brownfields Program:
FY2009 and FY2010 Enacted, and the President’s FY2011 Request
(millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
Omnibus
ARRA
Total
Enacted
FY2011
Account/ Program Area
P.L. 111-8
P.L. 111-5
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
Request
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Account



Section 104(k) Competitive
Project Grantsa
$97.0 $100.0 $197.0 $100.0 $138.3
Section 128 Categorical Grants
to States and Tribesb
$49.5 $0.0 $49.5 $49.5 $49.5
Brownfields
Grants
Total
$146.5 $100.0 $246.5 $149.5 $187.7
Environmental Programs and Management Account



EPA Administrative Expenses
$23.0 $0.0 $23.0 $24.2 $27.4
Brownfields Program Total
$169.5
$100.0
$269.5
$173.6
$215.1
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2009 Enacted appropriations are from the
conference report to accompany the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
FY2010 (H.R. 2996, H.Rept. 111-316, p. 241 and p. 243). President’s FY2011 request is from EPA’s FY2011
Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, p. 920, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget . Numbers may
not add due to rounding.
Note: “Omnibus” refers to the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY2009 (P.L. 111-8); “ARRA” refers to the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5).
a. Under Section 104(k) of CERCLA, EPA may award competitive grants to eligible entities for the assessment
or cleanup of individual brownfields to prepare them for redevelopment.
b. Under Section 128 of CERCLA, EPA may award grants to states and tribes to establish or enhance their
own cleanup programs, which in turn may assist in the assessment or cleanup of individual brownfield.
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Program41
In 1986, Congress established the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund to
provide a source of funds to support the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states in
remediating leaks from petroleum USTs.42 The trust fund is supported by a 0.1 cent-per-gallon
motor fuels tax and had a balance of $3.0 billion at the start of FY2010. EPA and states (through
state cooperative agreement grants) use LUST fund appropriations primarily to oversee and
enforce LUST cleanup activities conducted by responsible parties. Funds also are used to take
emergency actions, clean up abandoned tank sites, and pursue cost recovery actions.43
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct; P.L. 109-58) expanded the leak prevention provisions in
the UST regulatory program, imposed new program responsibilities on the states and EPA, and

41 This section was written by Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
42 The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA; P.L. 99-499), Title V, amended the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, Subtitle I, 42 U.S.C. § 6991-6991i).
43 For further discussion, CRS Report RS21201, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (USTs): Prevention and
Cleanup, by Mary Tiemann.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

also broadened the authorized uses of the LUST Trust Fund to support state implementation of
the new leak prevention requirements, in addition to supporting the LUST cleanup program. For
the past several years, Congress has appropriated funds from the trust fund to support both the
LUST cleanup program and the UST leak prevention and detection program. Previously, the UST
program had been supported entirely from general revenues.
Although the balance of the LUST Trust Fund has exceeded $3.0 billion, appropriations have
remained in the $70.0 million to $78.0 million range, far less than the fund earns annually from
interest and tax revenue. Many state LUST and UST programs report that they are understaffed
and underfunded. Meeting the EPAct requirements (particularly mandatory inspection of all tanks
every three years) has been particularly challenging for states. Cleanup resources are also tight.
As of the beginning of FY2010, nearly 80% of 488,000 leaking tank sites had been remediated,
but a backlog of more than 100,000 contaminated sites remained. Additionally, the presence of
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) at many LUST sites has increased the cost and complexity of
cleaning up many sites. That said, the relatively steady funding levels over the past three years,
and as requested for FY2010, increase the predictability and stability of state programs.
An emerging issue concerns the impact that alternative fuels may have on storage tank
infrastructure. Ethanol, for example, is more corrosive than gasoline, thus increasing the risk of
leaks in tank systems. The renewable fuel mandates in EPAct and the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA; P.L. 110-140) present new technical issues for USTs and for fuel
storage and delivery infrastructure, generally. Storage tanks are not designed for higher blends of
ethanol. EPA estimates that half the tanks in the ground are 20 years old and have never been
tested for compatibility with higher ethanol blends. Tank owners, EPA, states, and industry are
concerned that a new wave of leaks could occur as the amount of ethanol blended in gasoline
increases to meet EISA renewable fuel requirements. Under this scenario, EPA expects that more
leaks will occur; thus, placing more demands on the LUST Trust Fund. Currently, a key area of
work for EPA is assessing the compatibility of USTs with alternative fuel and evaluating the
transport and degradation characteristics of ethanol and biodiesel blends.44
Table 6 compares the President’s FY2011 request to the appropriations enacted for FY2009 and
FY2010 by EPA account for the LUST Program.

44 For further discussion of biofuels issues, see CRS Report R40155, Selected Issues Related to an Expansion of the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), by Randy Schnepf and Brent D. Yacobucci.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Table 6. Appropriations for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
Program Account: FY2009-FY2010 Enacted, and the FY2011 President’s Request
(millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
Omnibus
ARRA
Total
Enacted
FY2011
Account/Program Area
P.L. 111-8
P.L. 111-5
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
Request
LUST Account
$112.6
$200.0
$312.6
$113.1
$113.2
EPAct Provisions
$35.5
$0.0
$35.5
$34.4
$34.4
STAG Account





Categorical Grant: UST
$2.5
$0.0
$2.5
$2.5
$2.5
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2009 and FY2010 enacted appropriations are from
the conference report to accompany the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
FY2010 (H.R. 2996, H.Rept. 111-316, pp. 242–243). President’s FY2011 request is from EPA’s FY2011 Annual
Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget. Numbers may not add due to
rounding.
Note: “Omnibus” refers to the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY2009 (P.L. 111-8); “ARRA” refers to the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5).
Air Quality45
Congressional interest in EPA’s implementation of several provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
and proposed changes to this law and its regulations46 have been a major area of concern during
debate with respect to funding for the agency’s air quality programs. Most of this funding is
allocated among EPA’s accounts: grants to states and tribes in the STAG, EPM, and Science and
Technology (S&T) accounts.47 Funding within these accounts supports the implementation of
regulatory and grant programs, scientific research, and monitoring activities related to air quality.
Additional funding is provided within the Superfund account to support EPA technical assistance
for addressing potential radiation risks found at some Superfund sites.
A prominent issue related to air quality is one that has relatively little budgetary impact, but has
received a great deal of attention as EPA responds to a 2007 Supreme Court decision. The
decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, found greenhouse gases (GHGs) to be “air pollutants” within the
Clean Air Act’s definition of that term,48 and required EPA to consider whether GHGs endanger
public health or welfare, the first step in promulgating emission standards. In December 2009,
EPA formally responded to the Court decision by promulgating a finding that greenhouse gases
endanger both public health and welfare; the agency also found that emissions of four specific
GHGs from new motor vehicles contribute to that air pollution and must be controlled. Pursuant
to these findings, EPA expects to promulgate standards for light duty motor vehicles, including
cars and SUVs, by the end of March 2010. The implementation of these standards will, in turn,
trigger permitting and Best Available Control Technology requirements for new major stationary
sources of GHGs in early 2011.

45 This section was written by James E. McCarthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy, CRS Resources, Science, and
Industry Division.
46 See CRS Report R40145, Clean Air Issues in the 111th Congress, by James E. McCarthy.
47 The Superfund account also includes a small amount of funding, relative to the above accounts.
48 549 U.S. 497 (2007).
Congressional Research Service
17

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

The motor vehicle standards to be promulgated in March have not been particularly controversial:
they were negotiated with the auto manufacturers and other interested parties. Besides setting
emission standards, the negotiated agreement requires California and 13 other states that had been
proceeding to implement motor vehicle GHG standards of their own to instead adopt standards
identical to the federal.
It is the triggering of standards for stationary sources (power plants, manufacturing facilities, and
others) that has raised the most concern, resulting in efforts by many in Congress to prevent EPA
from implementing stationary source GHG emission requirements. These efforts have taken
several forms, including the introduction of resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional
Review Act in both the House and Senate, and stand-alone legislation in both bodies that would
forestall EPA action. The path to enactment of either of these forms of legislation is a steep one.
The Obama Administration has made the reduction of GHG emissions one of its most important
goals; as a result, many conclude that legislation restricting EPA’s authority to act, if passed by
Congress, would encounter a presidential veto.
Addressing the issue through an amendment to the EPA appropriations bill—an approach that was
discussed at some length in the fall of 2009, with amendments, including several that were filed
but not offered on the floor, to the FY2010 appropriations bill49—might be an easier lift, since the
overall appropriation bill to which it would be attached would presumably contain other elements
that would make it more difficult to veto.
In its FY2011 budget submission, EPA requests $43.0 million for “additional regulatory efforts
aimed at taking action on climate change,” $25.0 million “for state grants focused on developing
technical capacity to address greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act,” and $13.5
million “for implementing new emission standards that will reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions from mobile sources” including “developing potential standards for large transportation
sources such as locomotives and aircraft engines, and analyzing the potential need for standards
under petitions relating to major stationary sources.”50 Whether to modify these amounts or to
prevent EPA from developing or implementing GHG emission standards for stationary sources
are among the areas of debate.
The core of running the nation’s air pollution control programs (i.e., most monitoring, permitting,
and enforcement) is done by the states, not EPA. The Clean Air Act authorizes federal grants to
the states for up to 60% of the cost of running these programs; for the last decade, however, the
grant amounts have stagnated, with the federal contribution falling to as little as 23% of the total
cost of state air pollution programs. In the current recession, state revenues have taken a major
hit, and air programs, like other state spending, have been under severe budgetary pressures. In
response, EPA’s FY2011 budget request envisions a sharp increase in grants to the states for
implementation of Clean Air Act programs, from $226.6 million in FY2010 to $309.1 million in
FY2011, a 36% increase. The increase is in response to an anticipated rise in state workloads.
EPA is in the process of reviewing air quality standards for the six most widespread (“criteria”)
air pollutants, and has either promulgated or proposed strengthening four of the six.51 As these

49 See CRS Report R40685, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations, coordinated by
Carol Hardy Vincent, discussion under the heading “Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Reduction,” (beginning on
pg.41-42 of the PDF print version).
50 Testimony of Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Hearing on the President’s
Proposed EPA Budget for FY2011,” Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, February 23, 2010, pp. 2–3.
51 For a further discussion, see CRS Report R40145, Clean Air Issues in the 111th Congress, by James E. McCarthy.
Congressional Research Service
18

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

standards are finalized, the states will need to expand their monitoring networks, identify
nonattainment areas, and develop and implement plans for bringing nonattainment areas into
attainment.
EPA’s diesel emission reduction grants program has also generated interest in recent fiscal year
appropriations. The Energy Policy Act of 200552 authorized $200.0 million annually for these
grants from FY2007 through FY2011. EPA was authorized to award grants on a competitive basis
to assist regional, state, and local governments, tribes, and non-profit organizations in funding
projects that would reduce emissions from diesel-powered vehicles, engines, and equipment. Port
authorities and school districts have been among the major grant recipients, and EPA says that
spending on diesel emission reductions generates up to $13.00 in health benefits for every dollar
spent. The President’s FY2011 request includes $60.0 million for this program, the same as the
FY2010 appropriation. The stimulus law provided an additional $300.0 million in supplemental
funds for these grants in FY2009 for a total of $360.0 million in FY2009, much of which is only
now being awarded.
Table 7 presents a comparison of FY2009 and FY2010 appropriations and the President’s
FY2011 request for selected air quality activities within various EPA appropriations accounts.

52 In Subtitle G of Title VII of the act, P.L. 109-58.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Table 7. Appropriations for Selected EPA Air Quality Research and Implementation
Activities by Account: FY2009 and FY2010 Enacted,
and the President’s FY2011 Request
(millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
Omnibus
ARRA
Total
Enacted
FY2011
Account/Program Area
P.L. 111-8
P.L. 111-5
Enacted
P.L. 111-88
Request
Science and Technology Account





Air Toxics and Quality
$105.1
$0.0
$105.1
$121,9
124.8
Indoor Air
$1.1
$0.0
$1.1
$1.2
$1.2
Research: Clean Air (Incl. Global Change)
$98.4
$0.0
$98.4
$102.7
$107.3
Environmental Programs and Management Account



Air Toxics and Quality
$195.2
$0.0
$195.2
$202.2
$220.9
Indoor Air
$25.9
$0.0
$25.9
$26.6
$27.8
Hazardous Substances Superfund





Air Toxics and Quality
$2.3
$0.0
$2.3
$2.5
$2.6
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Account




Diesel Emission Grants (Energy Pol. Act)
$60.0
$300.0
$360.0
$60.0
$60.0
Targeted Airshed Grants
$15.0
$0.0
$15.0
$20.0
$0.0
Radon $8.1
$0.0
$8.1
$8.1
$8.1
State & Local Air Quality Management Grants
$224.1
$0.0
$224.1
$226.6
$309.1
Tribal Air Quality Management Grants
13.3
$0.0
$13.3
$13.3
$13.6
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2009 enacted amounts are based on information
provided by the conference report to accompany the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies House
Committee on Appropriations Act for FY2010 (H.R. 2996, H.Rept. 111-316, pp. 240–243). President’s FY2011
request is and from EPA’s FY2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, http://www.epa.gov/
ocfo/budget. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Note: “Omnibus” refers to the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY2009 (P.L. 111-8); “ARRA” refers to the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5).
Congressional Research Service
20

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Reduction53
Debate in the current appropriations process indicates interest among Members of Congress
concerning the federal government’s strategies, including EPA’s, to address climate change and to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. EPA is one of 17 federal agencies that received appropriations
for climate change activities in recent fiscal years. Issues that have emerged within the context of
appropriations by Congress include (1) how different agency programs may be complementary or
duplicative, (2) how these programs may together constitute an effective strategy to achieve U.S.
objectives, and (3) whether there are gaps or opportunities for efficiencies that may be addressed.
Most U.S. funding is aimed at energy technology development, and at Earth observations to
support the science enterprise.
For EPA climate change programs, the FY2011 request totals $205.5 million, covering all its
climate change research and implementation activities, and increase above the $163.6 million
appropriated for FY2010. However, the FY2011 request reflects increases and decreases from
FY2010 levels for various activities (Table 8). Funding appropriated to EPA is likely less than 2%
of all funding across federal agencies to address climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.54
EPA’s role among agencies, however, is proportionately larger because of its policy and potential
regulatory roles in addressing climate change, discussed further below. Funding for EPA climate
change activities has been requested within three EPA accounts: Science and Technology (S&T),
EPM, and STAG.
EPA’s funding request of $22.0 million for climate change research, nearly $1.2 million more than
the FY2010 appropriation, would support investigation of potential health or ecosystem impacts
of climate change, and options for adaptation. The research also would address whether
adaptation to climate change may involve modifications to EPA’s air and water pollution control
programs and its engagement with state partners and others. One potential issue is the overall role
of EPA, as interagency discussion continues over whether to establish a National Climate Service,
the scope of which may include but be potentially broader than the climate services being
established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Appropriations to
fund EPA’s role may be affected by views on whether and how EPA should engage in providing
climate services, including observations (e.g., monitoring); development of forecasts and decision
tools; the providing of information to states, localities, and sources; and other similar services.

53 This section was written by Jane A. Leggett, Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
54 See CRS Report RL33817, Climate Change: Federal Program Funding and Tax Incentives, by Jane A. Leggett. As
of the writing of this report, the Office of Management and Budget has not yet released its cross-cut budget for climate
change activities, so this percentage is a preliminary estimate by CRS.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Another issue central to appropriations deliberations may be EPA’s response to the Supreme
Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, especially proposals to nullify or reconsider the EPA
Administrator’s “endangerment finding” of December 7, 2009,55 that is a first step towards
regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from mobile sources and, potentially, stationary
sources, as discussed in the previous section. Additional proposals in Congress would block
EPA’s authority to regulate GHG under the CAA, or delay regulatory action for one or more years
to give Congress time to enact specific climate change legislation.
The FY2011 request includes an increase of $18.5 million to support regulatory efforts to reduce
GHG emissions, plus $25.0 million proposed as grants to states (via the STAG account) to help
them develop the technical capacity to address GHG in their CAA permitting activities. The
funding would support development and implementation of new performance standards to reduce
GHG emissions from passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium duty passenger vehicles, and
potentially for other mobile sources in response to legal obligations. The request would also
support assessment and potential development of New Source Performance Standards for
categories of major stationary sources.
The budget requests also would increase funding to $20.8 million, up by $4.1 million from the
FY2010 enacted level, to carry out the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule.56 EPA action to
establish mandatory GHG reporting was required by Congress in the FY2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161). Reliable GHG data would be critical to informing the
development of efficient policies. Experience in the European Union has demonstrated the
adverse consequences of inadequate emissions data as a baseline for setting regulatory
requirements in allocating allowances in its Emissions Trading System.57 Table 8 presents a
comparison of FY2009 and FY2010 appropriations and the President’s FY2011 request for
climate change protection and research activities within various EPA appropriations accounts
account for selected air quality activities.

55 “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act”
under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Federal Register 18886, April 24, 2009. For additional information
regarding implications of EPA’s proposed endangerment finding, see CRS Report R40585, Climate Change: Potential
Regulation of Stationary Greenhouse Gas Sources Under the Clean Air Act, by Larry Parker and James E. McCarthy,
and CRS Report R40506, Cars, Trucks, and Climate: EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases from Mobile Sources, by
James E. McCarthy.
56 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.
57 See, for example, http://www.climnet.org/component/content/article/55.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Table 8. Appropriations for EPA Climate Change Protection and Research:
FY2009-FY2010 Enacted, and the President’s FY2011 Request
($ in millions)
FY2009
Omnibus
FY2010
Enacted
Enacted
FY2011
EPA Accounts/Climate Change Activities
P.L. 111-8
P.L. 111-88
Request
Science and Technology Account



Climate Protection Program (clean automotive technology)
$16.8
$19.8
$16.9
Research Global Change (mostly impacts)
$17.9
$20.8
$22.0
Environmental Programs and Management Account


Climate Protection Program
$94.3
$113.0
$123.1
Energy Star
$49.7
$52.6
$55.5
Methane-to-Markets $4.5
$4.6
$4.6
Greenhouse gas reporting
$6.4
$16.7
$20.8
Other activities
$33.7
$39.1
$42.2
Air Toxics and Quality



Federal Vehicle & Fuel Standards & Certification
na na
$6.0
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
na na
$7.6
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
na na
$4.9
State and Tribal Assistance Grants Account



Local government climate change grants
$10.0
$10.0
$0.0
State & Local Air Quality Management
na
na
$25.0
Total EPA Climate Change
$139.0
$163.6
$205.5
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2009 enacted appropriations are from the conference
report to accompany the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2010 (H.R. 2996,
H.Rept. 111-316, pp. 240–243). No funding was specified for these Climate Change activities in the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Title VII of Division A of P.L. 111-5). The President’s FY2011 request
amounts are from EPA’s FY2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/
budget. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Notes: “Omnibus” refers to the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY2009 P.L. 111-88.
Congressional Research Service
23

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Under the President’s FY2011 request, EPA would continue its other, voluntary climate protection
programs with an increase of about $6.0 million requested over the FY2010 enacted levels. These
programs include Energy Star and Methane-to-Markets, as well as other analytical (e.g.,
economic analysis) and other efforts that encourage and assist the private sector, schools,
hospitals, and other enterprises to inventory and reduce their GHG emissions at a profit.
For FY2011, the Administration did not submit a request for funding specifically for international
efforts to address climate change. For several years, previous requests proposed funding for
international capacity building and for the Asia-Pacific Partnership, though funding for the latter
was never appropriated for EPA. Congress may consider whether and at what level EPA has
resources to engage in assisting governments in other countries to establish effective GHG
monitoring and control programs in the context of international cooperation to address climate
change. U.S. policy has emphasized the responsibilities of other major emitters also to reduce
their GHG emissions, and EPA has been engaged historically in building institutional
infrastructure and expertise that may help to realize reductions and to establish peer-to-peer
networks that may assist in verifying results.
Geographic/Ecosystem Programs58
The Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account includes funding for several
geographic/ecosystem programs to address certain environmental and human health risks in a
number of identified areas of the United States. These programs often involve collaboration
among EPA, state and local governments, communities, and nonprofit organizations. Table 9
presents a comparison of FY2009 and FY2010 appropriations and the President’s FY2011 request
for selected geographic/ecosystem program areas.

58 This section was written by Claudia Copeland, Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy, CRS Resources,
Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
24

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Table 9. Appropriations for Selected Geographic/Ecosystem Programs:
FY2009 and FY2010 Enacted, and the President’s FY2011 Request
(millions of dollars)
FY2009
Omnibus
FY2010
Enacted
Enacted
FY2011
Geographic/Ecosystem Program
P.L. 111-8
P.L. 111-88
Request
Water: Ecosystems
$86.1
$58.5
$55.5
National Estuary Program
$26.6
$32.6
$27.3
Great Lakes Legacy Acta $37.0
$0.0
$0.0
Wetlands $22.5
$25.9
$28.2
Geographic Programs
$96.0
$608.4
$416.1
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
$0.0
$475.0
$300.0
Great Lakes Programa $23.0
$0.0
$0.0
Chesapeake Bay Program
$31.0
$50.0
$63.0
Mississippi River Basinb $0
$0
$12.4
San Francisco Bay
$5.0
$7.0
$5.0
South Florida
$2.1
$2.2
$2.1
Puget Sound
$20.0
$50.0
$20.0
Long Island Sound Program
$3.0
$7.0
$3.0
Gulf of Mexico Program
$4.6
$6.0
$4.5
Lake Champlain Basin Program
$3.0
$4.0
$1.4
Lake Pontchartrain
$1.0
$1.5
$1.0
Community Action for Renewed Environment (CARE)
$2.8
$2.4
$2.4
Other Geographic Programs and Regional Initiatives
$1.3
$3.3
$1.3
Total Ecosystem/Geographic Programs
$182.1
$666.9
$471.6
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service. FY2009 enacted appropriations are from the
conference report to accompany the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
FY2010 (H.R. 2996, H.Rept. 111-316, p. 241). No funding was specified for these Geographic Program activities
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Title VII of Division A of P.L. 111-5). President’s
FY2011 request is from EPA’s FY2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, pp. 267–317,
and pp. 494–503, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget . Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Note: “Omnibus” refers to the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY2009 (P.L. 111-8).
a. Funding for the Great Lakes Legacy Act and for EPA’s Great Lakes Program was moved to the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative in FY2010.
b. An additional $4.6 million is included in the President’s FY2011 request within other sub-appropriation
account areas for activities related to the Mississippi Basin Program.
Congressional Research Service
25

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
In 2004 President Bush established a Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, chaired by EPA, 59 to
develop a strategy (released in 2005) that will guide federal Great Lakes protection and
restoration efforts. To better coordinate these efforts, the FY2010 budget requested, and Congress
endorsed in P.L. 111-88, a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative involving EPA and eight other
federal agencies and commitment of new federal resources. The purpose of the initiative is to
target the most significant problems in the ecosystem, such as aquatic invasive species, nonpoint
source pollution, and toxics and contaminated sediment.60 Projects and programs are to be based
on recommendations of the Interagency Task Force, and are to be implemented through the grants
and agreements with states, tribes, municipalities, universities, and other organizations. Of the
$475.0 million appropriated in FY2010, EPA was expected to retain $234.2 million for its
programs, and the remainder is to be distributed among other agencies, including the Departments
of Homeland Security, Defense, Transportation, Agriculture, Interior, Health and Human
Services, and State.61 The initiative consolidates funding for a number of existing federal Great
Lakes programs, including EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), its
implementation of the Great Lakes Legacy Act to clean up contaminated sediments, and other
agencies’ Great Lakes programs.
The FY2011 request proposes $300.0 million within EPA’s EPM account to continue the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative, $175.0 million below the FY2010 appropriations. Some stakeholders
have expressed concern about the reduced funding level proposed for FY2011. EPA officials note
that most of the FY2010 appropriations have not yet been obligated, and that two years’ of
investment totaling $775.0 million represents a significant advance in the federal government’s
commitment to Great Lakes protection.
Chesapeake Bay and Mississippi River Basin
In May 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13508: Chesapeake Bay Protection and
Restoration. The executive order called the Bay a national treasure and directed the federal
government to exercise greater leadership and actions to restore the Bay. The federal government,
the six states in the Bay watershed, and the District of Columbia agreed that by no later than 2025
they will complete implementing measures necessary to restore water quality in the Bay
watershed. Despite restoration efforts of the past 25 years, which have resulted in some successes
in specific parts of the ecosystem, the overall health of the Bay remains degraded by excessive
levels of nutrients and sediment. The President’s FY2011 budget requests $63 million for EPA to
implement the executive order and related activities to accelerate pollution reduction and aquatic
habitat restoration efforts in the Bay. The request is $13 million higher than the FY2010
appropriations (see Table 9).
The President’s FY2011 budget request for EPA also includes nearly $17.0 million in new
funding to address certain environmental issues in the Mississippi River Basin. Of this amount,
the request includes $12.4 million, within the Geographic/Ecosystem Program Area presented in

59 The Great Lakes Interagency Task Force was established by Executive Order in 2004; for information see
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/iatf/index.html.
60 For information, see the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative website, http://greatlakesrestoration.us/.
61 FY 2010 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification: EPA’s Proposed Budget, pgs. 293- 301, at
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/2010/tab_04_epm.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
26

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Table 9, to award grants to address pollution runoff from farms.62 Controlling such “non-point”
source pollution would be intended to reduce the introduction of nutrients into the basin, which
are thought to be a contributing cause of the severely oxygen-depleted “dead zone” in the Gulf of
Mexico.63 According to EPA, a key emphasis of this overall effort in the Mississippi River Basin
would be to encourage partnerships with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S.
Geological Survey to promote sustainable agricultural practices that are aimed at reducing
nutrient loadings into the waters of the basin.64

62 The EPA FY2011 Annual Performance Plan Congressional Justification identifies an additional $600,000 for the
compliance monitoring program (see p. 246), and $3.8 million to support applicable nonpoint source recommendations
of the Nutrients Innovations Task Group and Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Action Plan (see p. 534) in the Upper
Mississippi River Basin, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget.
63 See the Mississippi River Basin 2008 Action Plan, available at http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/actionplan.htm.
64 EPA, FY2011 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, p. 303, http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget.
Congressional Research Service
27

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Appendix A. Descriptions of EPA’s Eight
Appropriations Accounts
Since FY1996, EPA’s funding has been requested by the Administration and appropriated by
Congress under eight statutory accounts. Table A-1 describes the scope of the programs and
activities funded within each of these accounts. Prior to FY1996, Congress appropriated funding
for EPA under a different account structure, making it difficult to compare funding for the agency
historically over time by the individual accounts.
Table A-1. EPA’s Eight Appropriations Accounts
Science and Technology (S&T): The S&T account incorporates elements of the former Research and
Development account that was in place until FY1996. The S&T account funds the development of the scientific
knowledge and tools necessary to inform EPA’s formulation of pollution control regulations, standards, and agency
guidance. EPA carries out research activities not only at its own laboratories and facilities, but also through contracts,
grants, and cooperative agreements with other federal agencies, state and local governments, nonprofit organizations,
universities, and private businesses. Congress appropriates funds directly to the S&T account and transfers additional
funds from the Hazardous Substances Superfund account to the S&T account specifical y to support research related
to the cleanup of hazardous substances.
Environmental Programs and Management (EPM): The EPM account funds a broad range of activities involved
in EPA’s development of pollution control regulations and standards, and enforcement of these requirements across
multiple environmental media, such as air quality and water quality. The EPM account also funds technical assistance
to pollution control agencies and organizations, and technical assistance on how regulated entities can assure
compliance with environmental requirements to avoid violations. Much of EPA’s administrative and operational
expenses are funded within this account as well.
Office of Inspector General (OIG): As amended, the Inspector General Act of 1978 established Offices of
Inspector General in numerous federal agencies, including EPA. These offices are intended to conduct independent
auditing, evaluation, and investigation of an agency’s programs and activities to identify potential management and
administrative deficiencies, which may create conditions for instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement of funds,
and to recommend actions to correct these deficiencies. Congress appropriates funds directly to EPA’s OIG account
and transfers additional funds from the Hazardous Substances Superfund account to the OIG account specifical y to
support the office’s auditing, evaluation, and investigation of the Superfund program.
Buildings and Facilities: This account funds the construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration, and
purchase of fixed equipment and facilities owned or used by EPA.
Hazardous Substance Superfund: This account is funded by discretionary appropriations from a dedicated trust
fund of the same name, the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund. As amended, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) established the Superfund program to
clean up the nation’s most threatening sites and created the Superfund Trust Fund to finance the program. Dedicated
taxes on industry original y provided most of the revenues to the Superfund Trust Fund, but the taxing authority
expired at the end of 1995. Congress now finances this trust fund mostly with revenues from the General Fund of the
U.S. Treasury. EPA may use appropriations from the Superfund Trust Fund to enforce the liability of “potentially
responsible parties” for the cleanup of contaminated sites, and if the parties cannot be found or cannot pay at a site,
EPA may pay for the cleanup under a cost-share agreement with the state in which the site is located. Although the
Superfund account also funds EPA’s oversight of the cleanup of federal facilities by other agencies, these agencies fund
the actual cleanup with separate funds appropriated directly to them, not with Superfund monies.
Oil Spill Response: As authorized by the Oil Pol ution Act of 1990, this account funds EPA’s activities to prepare
for and prevent releases of oil into inland navigable waterways of the United States within the agency’s jurisdiction.
The U.S. Coast Guard has jurisdiction over oil spills in coastal waterways of the United States. EPA is reimbursed for
its expenses to respond to oil spills at inland sites from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is administered by the
U.S. Coast Guard.
Congressional Research Service
28

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund Program: Like the Superfund account, this
account is funded by discretionary appropriations from a dedicated trust fund of the same name, the LUST Trust
Fund. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 established this trust fund. The LUST Trust Fund
is financed primarily by a 0.1 cent per gal on tax on motor fuels, which is set to expire after September 30, 2011. EPA
may use appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund to pay for the prevention of, and response to, releases from
underground storage tanks that contain petroleum. EPA and the states (through cooperative agreements) may use the
funds to oversee corrective actions (i.e., cleanup) performed by the responsible parties, to conduct cleanups where a
responsible party fails to do so or in case of an emergency, and to recover LUST monies spent on cleanup from the
responsible parties. In addition to these activities, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 expanded the authorized uses of
appropriated LUST monies to include implementation and enforcement of EPA’s Underground Storage Tank leak
prevention and detection program.
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG): The majority of the funding within the STAG account is for
capitalization grants for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). SRF funding is used for
local wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, such as construction of and modifications to municipal
sewage treatment plants and drinking water treatment plants, to facilitate compliance with Clean Water Act and Safe
Drinking Water Act requirements, respectively. The remainder of the STAG account funds other water
infrastructure grants, categorical grants to states and tribes for numerous pol ution control activities, grants for the
cleanup of brownfields, and diesel emission reduction grants. Although the majority of funding for grants awarded by
EPA is funded within the STAG account, other agency accounts also fund various types of grants, such as the S&T and
EPM accounts.
Congressional Research Service
29

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Appendix B. Historical Funding Trends
The Nixon Administration established EPA in 1970 in response to growing public concern about
environmental pollution, consolidating federal pollution control responsibilities that had been
divided among several federal agencies. Congress has enacted an increasing number of
environmental laws, as well as major amendments to these statutes, over three decades following
EPA’s creation.65 Annual appropriations provide the funds necessary for EPA to carry out its
responsibilities under these laws, such as the regulation of air and water quality, use of pesticides
and toxic substances, management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes, and cleanup of
environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants to assist state, tribal, and local
governments in controlling pollution in order to comply with federal environmental requirements.
Figure B-1 presents a history of discretionary budget authority for EPA from FY1976 through
FY2010, and the President’s FY2011 budget request, as reported by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) in the “Historical Tables” accompanying the President’s Budget of the U.S.
Government, Fiscal Year 2011. Levels of agency budget authority prior to FY1976 were not
reported by OMB in the Historical Tables. In Figure B-1, the levels of discretionary budget
authority are presented in nominal dollars as reported by OMB, and are adjusted for inflation by
CRS to reflect the trend in real dollar values over time. EPA’s historical funding trends generally
reflects the evolution of the agency’s responsibilities over time, as Congress has enacted
legislation to authorize the agency’s programs and activities in response to a range of
environmental issues and concerns. In terms of the overall federal budget, EPA’s annual
appropriations have represented a relatively small portion of the total discretionary federal budget
(just under 1% in recent years).
Without adjusting for inflation, EPA’s funding has grown from $1.0 billion when EPA was
established in FY1970 to a peak funding level of $14.86 billion in FY2009. This peak includes
regular fiscal year appropriations of $7.64 billion provided for FY2009 in P.L. 111-8 and the
emergency supplemental appropriations of $7.22 billion provided for FY2009 in P.L. 111-5.
However, in real dollar values (adjusted for inflation), EPA’s funding in FY1978 was slighter
more than the level in FY2009, as presented in Figure B-1.

65 For discussion of these laws, see CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws: Summaries of Major Statutes
Administered by the EPA.
Congressional Research Service
30

---

.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2011

Figure B-1. EPA Discretionary Budget Authority FY1976-FY2010 and FY2011
President’s Request: Adjusted and Not Adjusted for Inflation
($ in billions)
18
16
14
12
s
Adjusted for Inflation (Est.) 2010 Dollars
n10
io
ill
B 8
$
6
Nominal Dollars
4
2
0
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2011
Request
Fiscal Year

Source: Prepared by CRS with information from the Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United
States Government Fiscal Year 2011, Historical Table: Table 5-4. CRS converted nominal dol ars to 2010 dol ars
using the GDP Chained Price Index from Table 10.1 Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical
Tables - 1940–2015.
Notes: FY1976 was the earliest fiscal year for which historical funding information on budget authority was
readily available from the Office of Management and Budget.

Author Contact Information

Robert Esworthy
Jane A. Leggett
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
resworthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-7236
jaleggett@crs.loc.gov, 7-9525
David M. Bearden
James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
dbearden@crs.loc.gov, 7-2390
jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-7225
Claudia Copeland
Mary Tiemann
Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
ccopeland@crs.loc.gov, 7-7227
mtiemann@crs.loc.gov, 7-5937


Congressional Research Service
31

---