They're
At It Again…States Attack Environmental Programs |
In another round of attempts to balance state budgets, many environmental
programs across the country are being disproportionately targeted
for cuts and even elimination (see Watchdog #38: http://www.serconline.org/watchdog/watchdog_alerts.html#watchdog38
for previous examples). Some California legislators have suggested
eliminating funding for the California Costal Commission that serves
as an environmental watchdog to the state's 1,110 miles of coastlines
to balance their $38 billion deficit. The commission was authorized
when voters passed Proposition 20 in 1972, and made permanent by the
legislature in 1976. Utah's Division of Air Quality has been forced
to shut down air pollution monitoring stations in order to help the
Department of Environmental Quality trim down its budget. This comes
at a time when air pollution is on the rise. Water quality monitoring
programs in Alaska are now threatened due to a shift in federal funds.
The state has opted to put the federal funds towards targeting non-point-source
pollution problems in state water bodies considered impaired and away
from monitoring measures aimed at preventing clean waters from becoming
polluted. In Washington State, the Department of Ecology has lost
funding, due to industry lobbyists pressuring legislators, for its
program to phase-out persistent toxic chemicals (PBTs). PBTs include
toxic chemicals such as dioxins and mercury. In Massachusetts, Gov.
Romney issued budget vetoes eliminating or reducing funding for three
environmental programs: a toxic uses reduction program, the state's
recycling program, and the riverways watershed protection program.
The environmental budget in Massachusetts makes up approximately 1%
of the overall budget and appears to have been hit quite hard, with
the Department already trying to recover from the loss of over two
hundred jobs. This is not a time to eliminate environmental programs
in a rash of poor planning and at the expense of the public's health.
Instead, states should be looking to cut environmentally harmful programs
and subsidies. |
|