State lawmakers across the country are shortsightedly slashing funding for environmental programs in an attempt to balance state budgets. New Hampshire legislators have proposed gutting the funding of the immensely popular land and community heritage investment program, and redirecting funds earmarked for soil and groundwater decontamination. Florida senators tried unsuccessfully to take half the budget of the state's manatee protection program, even after the recent determination by the U.S. Geological Survey that manatees face extinction. The Florida House may remove any guarantees to fund six environmental protection programs. The North Carolina Assembly wants to reduce funding for land conservation by 75 percent. Minnesota will almost certainly end a 40-year old program that directs cigarette tax funds to protecting the state's natural resources. South Carolina lawmakers are eyeing 15 environmental funds as a source of $16 million, a move that would remove almost all the funding for a toxic waste cleanup fund. The budget problems faced by states are serious, and cuts may need to be made across the board, but environmental programs should not be disproportionately targeted. These programs, which protect wildlife and habitat, promote recycling, conserve open space, maintain parks, and clean up pollution, are an investment in our future. Rather than targeting them for budget cuts, we should look for ways to stop subsidizing environmentally harmful projects and practices.

Ran 5/5/03