A number of environmental and conservation groups recently released their annual Green Budget, a report intended to illustrate how an infusion of federal monies for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 can help meet the environmental challenges facing our nation today as well as the development of clean energy resources, and sustainment of our lands, waters and other natural resources. Of the 34 organizations that contributed to this report, the National Tribal Environmental Council was the only such organization to provide tribal recommendations and specifically in relation to programs managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The universe of individuals who might view and reference the Green Budget when developing and considering federal budget and appropriations proposals is quite large, with the document circulated among Senate and House members, and high-ranking officials within federal agencies having jurisdiction over environmental and conservation matters. The report includes a short background on the benefits and challenges for dozens of important environmental programs, with subsequent FY 2011 funding recommendations for each of these programs.
For its part, NTEC provided broad recommendations with respect to tribal issues and concerns, often going through sections of the report and sometimes simply adding the word “tribe” to acknowledge the breadth of some federal programs that many such organizations only considered as applying to states and/or local governments. Our organization went one step further by providing specific funding recommendations for the EPA.
One of the key recommendations made by NTEC was to increase the funding levels of the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) to assure that the 2 percent tribal set-aside contained within each fund is sufficient to help meet the goals set forth under EPA’s 2006-2011 Strategic Plan as they relate to Indian tribes (pages 7-9). Under the Plan, a 2015 target was established for both achieving a 50 percent reduction in the number of tribal homes with inadequate wastewater, and a 50 percent reduction in the number of tribal homes without access to safe drinking water. To meet these goals, the annual amount of the set-asides through 2015 would need to be at least $13.7 million and $19.95 million respectfully, with such amounts highly dependent upon the overall funding levels of the SRFs. The Green Budget request far exceeds this amount as tribes would receive 2 percent of the overall clean water and drinking water SRFs request made by the environmental and conservation organizations – i.e., $2.5 billion and $2 billion. Monetarily speaking, tribes would end up having access to $50 million and $40 million respectively.
Other recommendations influenced by NTEC within the report include an increase in monies for section 103/105 grants for Indian tribes, namely an increase of $ 8.7 million over the FY 2010 enacted level of $13.3 million (pages 7-12, 7-13); an increase in monies available under the Indian General Assistance Program, namely an increase of $35.8 million over the FY 2010 enacted level of $62.9 million (page 7-13); and new monies as part of a tribal set-aside for Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative Agreements (page 7-13-14). As for the latter budget request, it appears to have been accounted for under the President’s FY 2011 Budget Proposal in the form of a $30 million request that would allow the EPA to provide targeted multimedia grants to tribes for implementation of Federal environmental programs. Indian tribes would therefore be able to develop and implement programs consistent with the Agency statutory authorities such as Clean Air Act section 105, Clean Water Act section 106, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and other tribal priorities. This could also include tribal activities such as monitoring, permitting, and other implementation responsibilities.
It is also important to note that the Green Budget contains the following statement to account for any lack of consensus among the organizations concerning any of the funding level recommendations contained within the document: “The organizations listed on the back cover do not necessarily endorse or have expertise on every recommendation in this report. Please refer to the Program Contacts at the end of this document for more information on a particular program.” As such, there may be portions of the document for which NTEC is not in agreement with other organizations serving as authors of the document. If there are items which cause you concern and which our organization can help improve upon in future reports, please do not hesitate to contact Bob Gruenig. Click below to download the full Green Budget.