Most of us
have probably been forced to micromanage our budgets lately. Prices continue to
rise, salaries are stagnating (for those of us lucky enough to still be
employed), and pocketbooks are being pinched from coast to coast. In this
current economic climate, it makes sense to look over your balance sheet and
consider shifting resources from column “A” to column “B” in an attempt to make
sure that, while that beach vacation may be put on hold, essential services
(i.e. utilities, groceries, housing) continue to receive adequate funding.
But when budget manipulation happens at
the federal level, it’s difficult to determine why certain dollars are
designated to one column over another. This week, the US House of
Representatives prepares to vote on appropriations for energy and water
development for the 2010 fiscal year (the Senate is also moving forward and
Appropriations Committee approved its version last week). According to
the New York Times the House will be talking a budget proposal of around $33 billion, aimed at
funding energy efficiency and waterworks projects. For water projects, the
budget breaks down as follow:
The water programs that will see an increase in funding include:
* A
budget of $5.5 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers (a $139 million increase
over fiscal 2009 levels) to fund improvements on existing
projects
* An
additional increase to the Army Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance
budget to $2.5 billion for infrastructure improvements
But,
by shifting funds to the Army Corps of Engineers, the bill forces other agencies
to deal with significantly decreased funding, including:
* Construction
for new projects, which will be reduced by $19 million to just over $2 billion
* A
reduction in the Army Corps of Engineers budget for investigation to just $26
million
* A
reduction of $133 million from 2009 levels for flood-damage reduction projects
in the Mississippi River Valley
* A $38
million cut for the Bureau of Reclamation, leaving just $920 million for water
development, management, and restoration in 17 western
states
* A $9
million cut in the California Bay-Delta restoration
project
So
what do you think? While a bulk of the money is designated for a variant of
energy efficiency programs, the increased funding for water projects should be a
godsend. But, does it make sense to shift federal funds away from the Bureau of
Reclamation and over to the Army Corps of Engineers? Some proposed amendments
that deal specifically with local water issues could close the gap—including an
amendment proposed by California representatives Jim Costa and Dennis Cardoza to
add an additional $10million to the California Bay-Delta restoration program—but
how effective is a funding bill that must be micromanaged by locally focused
amendments?
Click here to see a PDF of the proposed
legislation.