Tag Archives: Budget

Environmental Budget Cuts in NC: 2008-2018

December 12, 2019.  On December 5, the Environmental Integrity Project (a national nonprofit organization) issued a report on state funding for environmental protection programs. The report, The Thin Green Line,  looks at staffing levels and funding for environmental programs between 2008 and 2018 in the lower 48 states.

In addition to providing funding and position numbers for each state, the report profiles five states — including North Carolina.  During the period covered by the report, N.C. environmental programs experienced one of the highest levels of cuts to both operating budgets and staff in the country. The legislature made significant reductions even as the state’s population grew, the overall state budget increased and the state faced new environmental challenges.

Before highlighting  the findings related to North Carolina, a note about the report’s methodology.  The report compares  2018 funding levels to both 2008 dollars and inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars.  The percentage increase or decrease in funding calculated for each state represents the change from inflation-adjusted 2008 funding.

Funding and position numbers only reflect resources for environmental protection programs;  the report did not include parks and recreation or fish and wildlife agencies. Budget numbers do not include infrastructure programs, such as the drinking water and wastewater loan and grant programs. The report excluded the capital spending because it varies year to year depending on grant cycles and does not support  basic pollution control activities such as permitting, inspections and compliance actions.

Key findings related to North Carolina’s environmental protection programs:

♦ Adjusted for inflation, N.C. environmental programs experienced a 34% reduction in operating funds between 2008 and 2018.

 2008 Funding   Inflation Adjusted 2008  Funding   2018 Funding
 $116 million  $136 million   $90 million

♦ During the same period, staff levels in N.C. environmental protection programs fell by 35%, from 1,051 in 2008 to 675 in 2018.

♦ As environmental protection programs experienced significant cuts, the total state budget actually grew by 8%.

The level of reduction in  both operating funds and staff put North Carolina among only six states nationwide that experienced  reductions of greater than 30%. A number of states increased funding and staff.

The North Carolina profile in the EIP report notes that the reductions occurred against a backdrop of ongoing problems associated with large animal operations; the need to address pollution at coal ash disposal sites; repeated flood events; and vulnerability to sea level rise.  The report does not mention another resource intensive environmental issue that arose during this time period — water pollution associated with emerging contaminants such a GenX and other per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

A January 2017  post on this blog provided a snapshot of some of the program level impacts of budget reductions by the end of 2016. The EIP report picks up on one of the impacts mentioned then — the backlog of water pollution permits  and permit renewals awaiting state review. As noted in the EIP report, permitting backlogs can create pressure to issue approvals without sufficient review.  The report doesn’t mention another problem — facilities may continue to operate under permit conditions that do not reflect current environmental standards.

The EIP report notes that even as many states cut environmental programs,  Congress reduced staff levels at EPA by 16% and cut EPA’s operating budget by 17% (nearly $1 billion a year).  In combination, the federal and state budget/staff reductions make effective and timely environmental enforcement much more difficult.

The full report can be found on the Environmental Integrity Project website at https://www.environmentalintegrity.org.

2019 Legislation: The Budget

December 4, 2019.  The 2019 legislative session was distinguished by its slow pace and  lack of movement on significant legislation until very late in the session. The session finally ended in late October — and then reconvened to take up redistricting.  

The session failed to produce a comprehensive two-year budget. Governor Cooper vetoed the budget bill passed by the two chambers (H 966).  Although the House voted to override the veto, the Senate has not taken an override vote. In the absence of a comprehensive budget bill,  the legislature adopted several smaller appropriation bills to provide continued funding for state agencies.  House Bill 111 (Session Law 2019-242) provided base-budget funding for a number of state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

The irregular budget process means fewer details on spending;  the appropriations bills generally focus on top-line numbers. There is no equivalent of the joint appropriations committee report that always accompanies the budget bill to provide  detailed information on funding/staff changes at the program level.

DEQ Top Line Budget Numbers:  The table below compares 2018 budget numbers for DEQ to the funding included in H 111 for the 2019-200 fiscal year. Note: “Receipts” includes both fees and grant funding.  “Appropriated” funds  represent monies allocated to DEQ by the legislature from the state’s general fund for the 2019-2020 fiscal year; that figure can include both continuing program funding and one-time appropriations for a specific purpose.

Receipts    Appropriated       Total
2018: $154,234,668 2018 $95,647,490    2018: $249,882,158
2019: $114,576,705 2019: $114,576,705  2019: $193,918,082
  (-$39,657,963)         (-$16,306,113)  (-$55,964,076)

The figures show an overall reduction of $55, 964,076 in funding for DEQ programs by comparison to 2018 numbers — around 20%. The reduction reflects a $39,657,963 reduction in receipts and a reduction of $16,306,113 in state appropriated funding. The level of funding also falls nearly $20 million short of the funding provided in the vetoed budget bill.

The drop in receipts likely reflects in part the normal timing of grant cycles rather than an unusual reduction in funding. Otherwise, the fact that H 111 only funds the “base budget” — the cost of maintaining current funding levels for ongoing operations — accounts for the difference.  As a continuation budget, H 111 appropriated no new money on either a one-time or continuing basis.

Additional Appropriations. Several other bills include additional appropriations for particular purposes, many related to disaster relief.

Senate Bill 429 (Disaster Recovery) appropriates $8 million to DEQ for disaster-related water and wastewater infrastructure projects, cleanup, coastal management planning and dam safety activities. Another $11.5 million will go into DEQ’s Coastal Storm Mitigation Fund to offset the cost of beach and dune restoration projects. A local government can receive up to $2.5 million  in project funding and the provision waives local cost sharing.

Other funds appropriated in Senate Bill 429:

$2 million to UNC’s N.C. Policy Collaboratory to study flooding in Eastern North Carolina and measures to increase resiliency in flood-prone communities. The provision requires the Collaboratory to develop a flooding and resiliency implementation plan and report back to the legislature’s Emergency Management Oversight Committee by December 1, 2020.

$1 million to the Wildlife Resources Commission for removal of derelict and abandoned vessels from coastal waters.

$3 million in new funding to DEQ  for grants to Surry County for three infrastructure projects. These appropriations do not appear to be disaster-related.)

House Bill 200  (2019 Storm Recovery) includes $17.6 million in state matching funds needed to draw down the next award of federal grants for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund. Those state/federal revolving loan programs provide low and zero-interest loans to local governments for water and wastewater treatment systems.

Off the Table (For Now).  The unresolved conflict over House Bill 966 means that several provisions in the budget bill have fallen off the table at least for the time being. House Bill 966 appropriated about $15 million in new money for water/wastewater infrastructure. It also directed infrastructure funding to specific projects — including a $15 million project in King, N.C.  and $5.1 million in funding for infrastructure projects in other communities.

H 966 had included another provision redirecting $2 million from a DEQ fund to address contamination associated with poly- and perflourinated (PFAS) compounds such as GenX to a number of unrelated projects.  Over  $800,000 of the PFAS funding would have been used to extinguish a conservation easement in a Burlington park that had generated mitigation credits for N.C. Department of Transportation projects. (That provision was described in an earlier post.)

For the time being, the new infrastructure funding will not be available and funds in the PFAS Recovery Fund will remain dedicated to that purpose.

Environmental Legislation 2018: Part 1 – The Budget

July 9, 2018. An overview of 2018 state budget provisions affecting the environment:

♦ The budget provides funds to monitor water bodies for GenX and other per- and poly-fluoroalkyl  substances (PFAS). The budget bill also gives the Governor a new authority to stop releases of  PFAS albeit one not very practical to use.  See an earlier post for a detailed description of the GenX budget provisions.

♦ The budget directs up to $2 million to Speedway Motor Sports for environmental remediation at Charlotte Motor Speedway. The state funding will need to  be matched 2:1 by funding from other sources.   Half of the revenue from N.C.’s solid waste disposal tax goes to assess and cleanup contamination associated with landfills that pre-dated 1983 environmental standards for waste disposal; one of these “pre-regulatory” landfills is located in the infield of  Charlotte Motor Speedway.  The law governing the remediation program requires DEQ  to prioritize work on the old landfill sites based on risk to human health and the environment and it isn’t clear how the Charlotte Motor Speedway  ranks under the priority factors.  The budget provision may be intended to accelerate  (sorry!) remediation of the Speedway landfill  by immediately providing state funding, but conditioned on Speedway Motor Sports providing matching funds which  is not normally required under the remediation program. 

♦ The 2018 budget continues the legislature’s recent practice of bypassing the infrastructure  grant program in DEQ to direct water and sewer funds to specific projects.  In the normal grant process, DEQ and the State Water Infrastructure Authority allocate infrastructure funds under priority criteria that take into consideration a number of environmental, public health and financial factors. The budget bill diverts $2.5 million from the competitive  grant program  to projects in the towns of Richlands, Mount Airy,  Bath and Trenton. The amount per project varies from $201,000 to over $1 million.

♦ The budget directs $5 million dollars to Resource Institute, Inc. “to explore opportunities for the development and implementation of emerging techniques that can extend the useful life of beach nourishment projects”. Resource Institute, Inc., a Winston-Salem based non-profit, describes its mission as “[enhancement of] America’s natural resources by restoring streams, rivers and wetlands”. information  on the Resource Institute’s website indicate the nonprofit  largely assists in connecting restoration project sponsors with potential funding sources and planning assistance; the Institute does not appear to directly work on design and construction of restoration projects. 

♦ The  budget bill revisits a 2017  budget provision controlling use of funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s  (EPA) settlement of a Clean Air Act enforcement case against  Volkswagen (VW). Under the consent agreement, N.C. could receive over $90 million for air quality projects.  The  2017 state  budget required legislative committee review of DEQ’s proposed plan for use of the money and legislative appropriation of the funds to DEQ through  the state budget process.  (As a practical matter,  that means the legislature would have to act before DEQ could spend any funds designated for North Carolina by the national VW settlement trustee.) The 2018 budget bill adds more detail by directing the State Treasurer to hold the VW funds in a special account until  appropriated by the legislature.  The 2018 provision also adds a new sentence prohibiting  DEQ from releasing  any funds to a third party until the legislature has appropriated the money.  It isn’t clear whether the new sentence requires an individual appropriation for each project (and recipient) under the plan or was simply intended to restate the general requirement for  a lump sum appropriation to DEQ through the state budget process. The difference could be significant since the national VW  settlement trustee must be  assured that DEQ has authority under state law to use the VW settlement funds for the purposes described in the state plan. Some environmental organizations have expressed concern that the provision may undermine N.C.’s eligibility  to receive  VW settlement funds if it is interpreted to mean the legislature could refuse funding to an intended recipient, undermining DEQ’s legal authority to carry out the plan.

♦ The General Assembly again delayed implementation of nutrient reduction rules in the  Falls Lake and Jordan Lake watersheds; both lakes have impaired water quality due to excess nitrogen and phosphorus from wastewater discharges and runoff.   The legislature has repeatedly postponed full enforcement of nutrient reduction rules adopted by the Environmental Management Commission in  2009 (Jordan Lake) and 2011 (Falls Lake). The 2018 budget provision adds at least another year to previous delays in implementation of the Jordan Lake rules; the suspended rules would remain in limbo until completion of a new rulemaking effort that may not begin until 2020.  The provision extends the timeline for beginning work on new Falls Lake rules until 2024 and suspends enforcement of the later stages of the existing Falls Lake rules during that time.  A number of previous posts  —  going back to 2013 —  provide some history of legislative intervention in the regulation of nutrient discharges to the two reservoirs.

♦ Under the disaster relief section of the budget, the legislature provides $3.6 million to restart a program to map landslide hazard areas in western N.C.  The legislature had defunded the landslide mapping program several years ago. (See an earlier post for background on the political death of the landslide mapping program.)

2017 NC Legislative Session in Review: The Budget

July 16, 2017. A few notes on the final state budget which became law following legislative override of the Governor’s veto.

Funding for Environmental Protection Programs. The final budget continues a 7-year trend of annual reductions in environmental protection programs. (See an earlier post  describing the impact of those earlier reductions.) The most significant new cuts to programs in the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)  affect:

     Energy Programs. The budget takes almost $1 million from energy programs. The budget reduces pass-through funding for university-based energy centers from around $1 million to a total of $400,000 divided equally between centers at Appalachian State University and North Carolina A& T University. North Carolina State University’s Clean Energy Technology Center will receive no funding. The budget also eliminates 3 of 5 positions in DEQ’s Energy Office.

     Regional Offices/Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service.  DEQ’s seven   regional offices house frontline permitting, compliance and technical assistance staff for multiple environmental programs including water quality, water resources, air quality and waste management. Since 2011, the legislature has made the regional offices a particular target  for reductions in positions and funding. The 2017 budget reduces appropriations supporting DEQ’s  Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service by $500,000 and requires DEQ to meet the cut in part by eliminating one position in each of the seven regional offices. The Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service is a non-regulatory program that provides technical assistance to businesses on water conservation, energy efficiency, waste reduction and other measures to improve environmental compliance.

Conservation Funding. Most funding for conservation programs, such as the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund now go through the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources budget. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services also manages some conservation funds through the Farmland Preservation Trust, which purchases conservation easements on agricultural lands. Conservation funding in both departments generally remained stable. The legislature increased funding for the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, earmarking a combined  $1 million of the increase for an acquisition project on Archer’s Creek (Bogue Banks). The budget also allocates an additional $2.6 million to the Wildlife Resources Commission for acquisition of gamelands and an additional $2 million to the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund.

Surprisingly, the budget did not include state funds to match a federal Department of Defense (DOD) challenge grant of $9.2 million to acquire conservation lands to provide buffers around military installations. DOD announced award of a Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration (“REPI”) grant to North Carolina earlier this year for acquisition of buffers around the Dare County Bombing Range and endangered species habitat near Camp Lejeune.  The federal award  anticipated a state contribution of an additional $10.1 to be put toward the projects.  The final state budget failed to earmark any funding for the state match. The  Clean Water Management Trust Fund and other state conservation agencies could provide some  of the state match, but in the absence of a legislative earmark the REPI projects would be competing with other applications for those grant funds.

Special provisions. As usual, the budget bill (Senate Bill 257 ) includes a number of “special provisions” that  change existing law. Those include:

     Air quality. The budget allows DEQ to use fees from automobile emissions inspections to support any part of the air quality program. Previously, inspection fee revenue could only be used to implement the automobile inspection and maintenance program. In the past, the legislature has tilted toward keeping inspection and maintenance fees as low as possible while still providing adequate reimbursement to inspection stations. The 2017 provision  divorces the fees from the needs of the vehicle inspection and maintenance program for the first time.

The budget also requires legislative approval of DEQ’s plan to use approximately $90 million the state will receive from the Environmental Protection Agency’s  national settlement of an air quality enforcement case against Volkswagen.  (The case concerned  VW’s installation of software to defeat vehicle emissions control systems.) Funds from the settlement will be divided among the states and must be spent for purposes specifically allowed under the EPA settlement agreement.  The agreement gives states a number of options and the legislature clearly wants to influence DEQ’s decision about use of the funds.

     Solid Waste. The budget shifts $1 million from a fund for assessment/cleanup of contamination caused by old, unlined  landfills to the City of Havelock to be used for “repurposing” property previously owned by a recycling company.  (See Sec. 13.3) Phoenix Recycling operated on property just beyond the city limits, but closed in 2000 as a result of environmental violations.  In 2012, the City of Havelock received a state grant to assess environmental contamination on the property. In 2015, Havelock’s city manager advised the town council that if the city acquired the property, it could be eligible for up to $550,000 in federal “Brownfield” grant funds under an EPA program to support cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated sites.  In 2016, the city acquired the property and annexed it into the city.  It isn’t clear whether the city ever applied for the federal Brownfields grant. The 2017 budget provision would instead provide state funding for redevelopment of the property. A Progressive Pulse blogpost provides a good overview of how the earmarking of these funds for the Phoenix Recycling property will reduce funds available to cleanup other, higher priority contaminated sites.

Another provision (Sec. 13.4) allows the owner of an old, unlined landfill site to exclude the property from a state program to cleanup contamination  from  “pre-1983” landfills.  (Modern standards for solid waste landfills went into effect in 1983).  Under the provision, the owner can remove property from the state cleanup program by accepting liability for any contamination and providing financial assurance to address contamination. Financial assurance would not be required if the landfill had received solid waste from a local government (which was often the case). This is a very odd provision in several ways:

♦ Under current law, DEQ has responsibility for assessment and cleanup of pre-1983 landfill sites;  revenue from a statewide solid waste disposal tax pays for the remediation. Under the new provision, a property owner would  waive state responsibility for cleanup and potentially accept environmental liability they might not otherwise have.

♦ The provision has not been restricted to sites that present a low environmental  risk; the only limitations seem to be the property owner’s willingness  to take on the liability and ability to provide financial assurance if required.

♦ The provision describes the opt-out as a “suspension” of the state cleanup program for as long as the person owns the property. That clearly means the state itself would not undertake any assessment or cleanup activity on the site, but the law does not suspend enforcement of state groundwater standards and other environmental remediation requirements. Those programs normally seek remediation by the person(s) responsible for the contamination; under the new provision, the property owner  must volunteer for the liability whether they contributed to the contamination or not.

♦  The implication of a “suspension” is that the state may again have responsibility for the site if it changes ownership in the future. Suspending environmental remediation until a change of ownership could simply delay necessary cleanup activities without regard to environmental risk.

It isn’t clear why a property owner would ever choose to do this.

The budget bill also requires a study of DEQ’s use of revenue from the solid waste disposal tax. The opt-out in Section 13.4  may be a hint of additional changes to the solid waste disposal tax and the state cleanup program for pre-1983 landfills.

     Water Quality: Nutrient Pollution.  The (now annual) budget provision concerning nutrient management strategies directs DEQ to use $1.3 million to test use of algaecides and phosphorus-locking technologies as an alternative to state rules imposing tighter wastewater limits and stormwater controls to address excess nutrients  in  Falls Lake and Jordan Lake. Those rules have been temporarily suspended by the legislature.  (For background on the nutrient rules, see a previous post;  the proposal for an automatic sunset  of the nutrient rules described in the earlier  blogpost was ultimately replaced by legislation further delaying implementation of the rules and a university-based study.)  Based on discussion in committee, legislators had a specific technology developed by a North Carolina-based company in mind.

President Trump’s Budget: State Environment Programs

June 9, 2017.   Now that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has released detailed budget documents, the impact of President Trump’s proposed  budget has become more clear.  In addition to eliminating some federal grants altogether  (see an earlier post), the President’s budget would significantly reduce federal funds supporting basic state environmental protection programs. The tables below have  been based on the percentage reduction to each  federal grant category proposed in the President’s budget as applied to the certified 2016-2017 state budget for the corresponding program.  Additional detail not available in OMB documents comes from a budget analysis   prepared by the Environmental Council of States (an organization of state environment officials).

The President has proposed a 30% reduction in grants to the states to carry out federal Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act permitting and enforcement programs. The proposed budget makes significant cuts in funding to  support federal environmental protection programs delegated to the states, although not at the level  in the “skinny budget”. OMB budget documents now  show  a 30% reduction in those state grants.  Since federal grants provide 50% of the total funding for North Carolina’s Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act  programs,  a 30% cut in those federal grants would create a  big hole in budgets for state permitting and enforcement.  The result (by comparison to certified state budget for 2016-2017):

N.C. Clean Air Act Implementation (Permitting and Enforcement)
Total Need Federal Grant Federally Funded President’s Budget Program Impact
 $4,854,105  $2,482,845       50%   -30%  -$744,853 (15%)
Clean Water Act  Implementation (Permitting and Enforcement)
Total Funding Federal Grant Federally Funded President’s Budget Program Impact
$14, 160,554 $6,662,950        50%              -30%       – $1,998,885 (14%)
Safe Drinking Water Act Implementation (Permitting and Enforcement)
Total Funding Federal Grant Federally Funded President’s Budget Program Impact
  $5,870, 612         $ 3,316,895      > 50%      -30%    – $1,459,433 (25%)

The President’s budget makes significant cuts to funding for programs addressing hazardous waste and petroleum contamination.

Superfund.  The federal Superfund program addresses contaminated sites nationwide that pose the greatest risk to human health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency takes the lead on assessment and cleanup of those “national priority” sites. North Carolina has around  40 designated Superfund sites contaminated by pesticides, solvents and other hazardous substances. (For more information,  see the EPA list  of N.C. Superfund sites.)  The President’s budget proposes to cut funding for Superfund cleanups  by 30%.

Petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs): The budget significantly cuts federal  grants to address past petroleum contamination and to regulate  USTs to prevent future contamination. As a geographically large and  rural state, North Carolina has nearly 20,000 properties contaminated by petroleum leaks from gas station or convenience store gas pumps.   The President’s budget appears to reduce federal funds to assess and cleanup up past contamination  by 30%. The budget entirely eliminates grant funds to support state regulatory programs enforcing  federal standards to prevent future UST leaks.  

“Brownfields” redevelopment. The federal Brownfields program supports cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated properties. EPA makes grants for individual redevelopment projects and provides grants to state programs promoting cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated properties. Brownfields grants can be particularly important to redevelopment of urban areas that might otherwise be under-utilized because of concerns about environmental contamination and liability. The President’s budget  cuts direct federal Brownfields grants by 14% and reduces grants to state Brownfields programs by 30%. North Carolina’s Brownfields program — supported entirely by developer fees and federal grant funds —  has leveraged over  $10 billion in private development since 1997.

President Trump’s Budget: Zero-Funding Energy and Environment Programs

May 31, 2017. President Trump’s proposed budget would completely eliminate a number of environmental programs. Some of those programs fund state activities to protect against environmental harm, increase energy efficiency, build water/sewer infrastructure and respond to natural disasters. Below, some of the programs zero-funded under the President’s budget*:

EMERGENCY RESPONSE

♦ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone mapping/flood risk analysis. As part of the federal flood insurance program, FEMA maps flood zones along rivers, streams and ocean shorelines.  Flood zone maps have to be updated as shorelines respond to subsidence or sea level rise and upland development increases runoff.  The federal flood insurance program uses the maps to set flood insurance rates; the maps also affect state and local construction standards in flood hazard areas. The President’s budget assumes flood zone mapping should be funded by the residents of flood hazard areas and by state governments.

♦ Emergency food and housing grants. FEMA provides grants to states for  emergency food and housing needs following natural disasters. The grant funds would be eliminated as duplicative of other programs; federal budget documents also indicate these needs should largely be a  state responsibility.

ENERGY

♦ Energy Star Program.  The  Energy Star program (developed by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency) rates household appliances for energy and water efficiency.  Energy Star ratings on high efficiency washers, dryers, dishwashers, refrigerators and other appliances allow consumers to compare energy/water usage and potential cost savings over the life of the appliance. The President’s budget assumes that this kind of consumer rating program can and should be provided by the private sector.

♦ Weatherization Assistance Program. This Department of Energy  program provides grants to the states to weather-proof housing for low-income residents. The weatherization program’s goals are to increase energy efficiency and reduce energy bills for low income homeowners.

♦ State Energy Program funds. These Department of Energy grants support state energy initiatives, including programs to increase the energy efficiency of state buildings and infrastructure.

COASTAL PROGRAMS

♦ Coastal Zone Management Act Grants. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) grants support state coastal management programs. A NOAA grant provides about 50% of the funding for North Carolina’s coastal program, which regulates development affecting significant coastal resources such as coastal wetlands, public trust waters, and ocean/inlet shorelines.

♦ National Estuarine Research Reserves. NOAA also provides significant funding for coastal natural areas set aside for conservation, research and education. North Carolina  has four Estuarine Research Reserves: Currituck Banks, Rachel Carson, Zeke’s Island and Masonboro Island. NOAA  grants provide about 75% of the funding for management of the N.C. Estuarine Research Reserve sites.

♦ Sea Grant.   The federal Sea Grant program supports university-based coastal research and extension services in 33 states and territories on the coasts and Great Lakes. North Carolina’s Sea Grant program, based at North Carolina State University,  provides scientific, engineering and legal expertise on coastal issues including wetlands protection, aquaculture, and shoreline stabilization. You can find a description of N.C. Sea Grant programs and activities here.

WATER/WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE

♦ Rural Water/Wastewater Disposal Program. This Department of Commerce program provides  water and sewer grants to rural communities.  The President’s budget would eliminate the program as duplicative of infrastructure loans provided through the larger Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)  programs.  Unlike the SRF programs, however, the Rural Water and Wastewater Disposal Program provides grants that can  be used to support rural economic development.  SRF loans must be used to upgrade existing water and sewer systems to meet Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act  standards; the loans cannot be used to extend a water or sewer system just to serve new economic development.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

♦ Geographic environmental restoration programs.  The President’s budget eliminates funding for a number of regional water quality restoration programs. Most of the programs involve coordination among states and the federal government to solve pollution problems in multi-state water bodies like Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes.

♦ Chemical Safety Board.   The Chemical Safety Board — made up of independent experts —  investigates chemical accidents and releases. In North Carolina,  the Chemical Safety Board has investigated and identified the cause of several incidents, including the 2006 explosion and fire at a hazardous waste facility in Apex that forced the evacuation of 16,000 people.

♦ BEACH program. This EPA program provides  grants to support state monitoring of beach water quality during the swimming season. In North Carolina, the Division of Marine Fisheries receives  BEACH funding to support the state’s Recreational Water Quality Program. The state program  tests the water quality at  240 swimming areas weekly between April 1 and October 31. The water quality monitoring allows the agency  to warn the public — and if necessary close a beach for swimming — if  bacteria reaches unsafe levels.

* Based on budget documents released by the Office of Management and Budget and informed by additional analysis provided by the Environmental Council of States (an organization of state environmental officials.)

NC Senate: Proposed 2017 Budget

May 10, 2017.  Some highlights of the state budget proposed by Senate leadership as it affects environmental programs:

Money. The Senate budget continues  a nearly 10-year trend of cuts in environmental programs. An earlier post described some of the impacts of previous  budget cuts that began with the  2008 recession (including a 9% reversion of already-budgeted funds in 2009) and continued after the economy began to recover.

The Senate’s proposed budget for 2017 would reduce state appropriations to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) by nearly $7 million.  That represents a 10% reduction in state appropriations and a 3% reduction in the department’s overall budget (which also includes federal grant funds and permit fees).

The reductions include:

♦ A $3.5 million discretionary cut,  which means DEQ will have to identify  reductions within the department’s operating budget.

♦  A $1 million transfer of funds  to the N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) to challenge an EPA rule defining federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Under the McCrory administration, DEQ had joined  a number of other states in suing over the federal rule.  The Cooper administration dropped out of the litigation and the Senate provision would fund DACS  to continue the state’s participation in that litigation.

♦ The budget eliminates  56.5 positions from existing DEQ programs:

      32.5 positions in the Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service. Those cuts affect non-regulatory waste reduction, recycling,  water/energy efficiency and  permit assistance programs. The cuts would effectively eliminate DEQ programs that work with business/industry to voluntarily reduce waste generation which allows those businesses and industries  to reduce their regulatory burden and save money.

      14 regional office support positions. DEQ’s seven regional offices house frontline permitting and enforcement staff for multiple environmental programs. The legislature has targeted DEQ  regional offices for staff cuts in the past. This provision requires a reduction of an additional 2 positions in each  regional office. It is not clear which DEQ programs would be affected.

      5  administrative positions. The Senate bill  identifies specific jobs for elimination, including  DEQ’s Chief Deputy Secretary,  the Legislative Affairs Program Manager; a communications position; and the last two environment education positions remaining in the department.

      3 positions in the N.C. Geodetic Survey

      1 position in the Land Quality Section of the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources

      1 position in the Division of Marine Fisheries

Policy provisions in the budget bill. The budget bill includes a number of changes in state law or policy related to environmental programs:

♦  Conditions on use of funds the state may receive as a result of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s settlement with Volkswagen for violations of the Clean Air Act (Sec. 13.2 )  The Senate provision sets criteria for use of the funds and requires legislative approval of a DEQ plan for the funds.

♦  A provision  that allows the owners of old landfill sites to avoid environmental cleanup requirements by: 1. Accepting liability for onsite and offsite contamination; and 2. Providing financial assurance for any environmental harm.  There is an exception for property owners who did not receive compensation to accept local government waste for disposal. The provision affects a state program to assess and cleanup contamination associated with landfills and trash dumps that never met standards for solid waste landfills adopted in 1983. (iSec. 13.4).

♦  Changes to laws governing the Marine Fisheries Commission (Sec. 13.17) . The provision reduces the MFC from nine members to seven members and requires a super-majority of five  members to take any action — including adoption of rules. As with most state commissions, current law only requires a simple majority of the MFC to take most actions although a super-majority is required for adoption of fisheries management plans.

♦  A moratorium on wind energy projects (Sec. 24.2). The bill would prevent DEQ from issuing permits for new wind energy projects until December 31. 2020. During the moratorium, the bill would require a study of the impact of wind energy facilities on military operations in the state. Note; the process for approval of wind energy facilities already requires Federal Aviation Administration review and  input from military  installations.

The Federal Budget and North Carolina’s Environment

March 24, 2017.  Last week, the Trump administration released the Trump Budget Blueprint which describes in very general terms the President’s budget proposals for federal agencies.  The Blueprint just opens the debate on the 2018 federal budget.  Congress will significantly influence the final budget and members from both parties have already expressed concern about some of Trump’s proposed budget cuts.   Percentage-wise, the deepest cuts in the Trump Budget Blueprint affect the Environmental Protection Agency.  As background for the coming federal budget debate,  this blogpost looks at the potential impact of the Trump budget plan on key state environmental protection programs.

Based on preliminary reports, the North Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club provided a guide to the potential impact of the Trump budget the day before actual release of the Budget Blueprint. (Full disclosure — I assisted in preparation of the Sierra Club report.)  For each  major state environmental protection program, the report shows the percentage of the program budget currently funded by federal grants and the impact of cuts identified in the Trump budget plan. The report also provides information on other  DEQ activities supported by  federal grants that may be eliminated under the Trump administration’s  budget plan.

I want to focus on information in the Sierra Club report about impacts to Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act programs in North Carolina.   EPA  has delegated federal permitting and enforcement authority under those laws to the state’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). EPA provides oversight to ensure the state programs meet federal requirements,  but DEQ has responsibility for day to day implementation.  DEQ issues Clean Water Act permits for wastewater discharges; Clean Air Act permits for  air emissions and air pollution control equipment; and Safe Drinking Water Act permits for public water systems.  DEQ also enforces water quality, air quality and drinking water standards.  In return for the state taking on those federal permitting and enforcement responsibilities, EPA provides program implementation or “categorical” grants to partially offset the cost.

The Trump Budget Blueprint does not provide detail on many cuts, but specifically proposes a 45% reduction in the EPA categorical grants that support basic state Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act programs. The tables below put the proposed cut in the context of each delegated program’s budget. Some notes on the numbers:

♦ “Total Need” means the complete budget (from all funding sources) for the delegated Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act program.

♦  Both the “total need” and federal funding numbers come from the certified state budget for the 2016-2017 fiscal year.

♦  These numbers only cover the EPA categorical grants for the delegated federal permitting/enforcement programs.  The numbers do not reflect separate federal grants for targeted research or pollution reduction projects like  the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program. Some of those federal grants reportedly have been targeted for elimination in Trump administration budget plans.

♦ The proposed federal funding cuts shown below are higher than those show for these same programs in the Sierra Club report because the final Trump Blueprint increased the percentage reduction over those reported earlier.

N.C. Clean Air Act Implementation

Total Need Federal Grant % Federally Funded Proposed Federal Funding Cut
$4,854,105 $2,482,845  50% – 45%

Clean Water Act Program Implementation 

Total Need Federal Grant % Federally Funded Proposed Federal Funding Cut
$14,160,554 $6,662,950   50%  -45%

Safe Drinking Water Act Program Implementation 

Total Need Federal Grant % Federally Funded Proposed Federal Funding Cut
$5,870,612 $3,316,895 50% – 45%

In sum: EPA grants provide 50% of the funding for each of the major environmental permitting and enforcement programs delegated to the state under federal law. A 45% reduction in the federal grant would result in a cut of nearly 25% to each of those state programs.  As discussed in an earlier post, many N.C. environmental protection programs have already experienced significant reductions in state funding since 2009-2010. The water quality program has been particularly hard hit.

Deep cuts to the federal grants would force the state to decide whether to make up the loss of federal funds with increased state appropriations from tax revenue or higher permit fees. The alternative would be to accept further erosion of those programs. The question may be particularly acute for the air quality program which is now entirely supported by the federal grant and permit fees.

You can find the entire Sierra Club report here .

NOTE: The original blog post has been revised to more accurately describe the release date for the Sierra Club guide and to note that information on  percentage reductions to these particular programs changed (for the worse) after release of the Sierra Club report. 

The State of the Environment Department: By the Numbers

January 12, 2017. Governor Roy Cooper inherits an environment department that looks very different than it did four years ago. The new Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is much smaller in size and scope than the old Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).  Since 2011, legislators have moved conservation and research programs out of the department.  DEQ’s environmental protection programs  lost non-regulatory conservation and research partners like Soil and Water Conservation, Forestry, Parks and Recreation and the Museum of Natural Sciences.

The environmental programs remaining in DEQ also lost a significant number of positions.  The incoming administration will face some immediate challenges in providing timely permit reviews, inspections and compliance assistance with staffing at levels inadequate to respond to an upturn in economic activity.

About the numbers. The numbers below come from information provided by DEQ during the transition between the McCrory and Cooper administrations; reports submitted to the legislature by DENR/DEQ; and legislative budget documents.

Environmental programs experienced some position reductions in  2009-2010 due to recession-driven budget cuts; those cuts tended to focus on vacant positions. Since 2011, the nature of the position cuts have changed.  Instead of setting a budget reduction target and giving the department flexibility to meet it,  the legislature increasingly identified specific positions for elimination or focused cuts on particular programs in the department. Many of the targeted reductions affected water quality programs (including stormwater and sedimentation control) and multi-agency staffing in the department’s seven regional offices.

DEQ by the numbers:

18%   Percentage reduction in water quality and water resources staff.

41% Percentage reduction in water quality/water resources staff in DEQ regional offices. The seven regional offices house staff from multiple DEQ programs. Staff based in the regional offices do initial site visits for permit applications; provide technical assistance; and inspect permitted facilities for their respective programs.  A 2011 budget provision specifically targeted the regional offices for position cuts: 3 administrative positions; 6 positions in the Asheville Regional Office; and another 21 positions among the seven regional offices to be either eliminated or shifted from state funds to another funding source. The cuts in regional office staff came on top of program-specific position cuts, further reducing program staff and limiting the number of staff geographically accessible to the public.

45%   Percentage reduction in state sedimentation program staff since 2008; staffing levels fell from 65 in 2008-2009 to 36.9 in 2015-2016. The sedimentation program implements the state law requiring erosion control measures on active construction sites to prevent sediment from reaching rivers, lakes and streams.

12,000  The number of construction sites the state sedimentation program staff has  responsibility for monitoring.

Every 12-14 Months: Frequency of state inspection of  sedimentation sites based on current staffing levels.

2 Years. The average time required to issue  a Clean Water Act wastewater discharge permit. (The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System or “NPDES” permits.)

42%  The percentage of industrial discharge NPDES permits that have expired and not yet been renewed with updated permit conditions.

34%  The percentage of major municipal NPDES permits that are expired and need renewal.

20% Reduction in Division of Coastal Management staff since 2010. DCM  issues permits for major development projects affecting coastal resources; supports public beach access projects;  and manages the state’s coastal reserve sites for research and education activities.

40% Reduction in core Division of Marine Fisheries staff since 2011. (The figure does not reflect the Shellfish Sanitation staff moved into DMF from the Division of Environmental Health in 2012.)

27.9 Administrative positions eliminated department-wide since 2015. (Budget, purchasing, IT, personnel, and public information staff.)

9%    Percentage of DEQ’s authorized positions that are currently vacant (161). By comparison, the much larger Department of Environment and Natural Resources had only 40 unfilled positions in the summer of 2012.

3  Programs or services entirely eliminated through budget cuts since  2009:  the Neuse River Rapid Response Team (provided response to fish kills and pollution incidents in the Neuse River); the Office of Environmental Education; and the Division of Water Quality’s well drilling team (drilled monitoring wells used to investigate groundwater quality/quantity).

Some of the consequences. Loss of staff has already lengthened some  permitting times and the department’s permitting programs are not in a good position to respond to increased development activity as the economy continues to improve. Staff reductions have also affected DEQ’s ability to provide compliance assistance and enforce environmental laws. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has expressed concern about the failure of federally delegated programs in DEQ to follow the department’s enforcement policy.  EPA has also questioned the  adequacy of the state’s stormwater program.

2016 Legislative Session in Review: The Budget

July 7, 2016. A few notes on how the General Assembly allocated state funds for the environment.

A New Trend Toward Funding Environmental Studies at UNC-CH —  The legislature directed (and in most cases funded) the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to study  or convene stakeholder groups on  environmental and natural resource policies rather than assigning those projects to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)  or to a legislative study committee:

♦  The budget directs UNC to create a North Carolina Policy Collaborative  to “facilitate the dissemination of the policy and research expertise of UNC for practical use by State and local government”. The Collaborative will focus on research related to natural resource management, including “research related to the environmental and economic components of the management of the natural resources within the State of North Carolina and of new technologies for habitat, environment and water quality improvement.” The legislature appropriated $1 million to the UNC Board of Governors for the N.C. Policy Collaborative for the 2016-2017 fiscal year.

♦ A UNC-led stakeholder group will study efforts to “ecologically restore and achieve economic sustainability” the state’s shellfish aquaculture industry.  The budget provision directs the UNC-Chapel Hill Chief Sustainability Officer (Brad Ives, former Assistant Secretary in DEQ) to lead the stakeholder group. The legislature did not appropriate funds for the effort.

♦ The budget creates a new study of water quality programs to reduce nutrient pollution focused on the Falls Lake and Jordan Lake nutrient reduction strategies. See an earlier post for more detail on the substance of this  budget provision and the effect on enforcement of the Falls Lake and Jordan Lake water quality rules. The legislation gives the UNC-CH Chief Sustainability Officer responsibility for this study as well and provides funding  at $500,000 per year for six years. (The budget provision allocates an additional $1.3 million to DEQ in 2016-2017 to  study  in situ technologies to reduce nutrient impacts.)

These represent unusually large and extended state investments in environmental studies. The combined UNC/DEQ  appropriations for environmental research, collaboration and water quality studies total  $2.8 million just for FY 2016-2017. The UNC nutrient study will be  funded at $500,000 per year for  another five years beyond that. By comparison,  the legislature appropriated only $100,000  for a one-year study of another high profile environmental issue —  hydraulic fracturing — in 2011-2012.  Another reference point may be the annual budget of  $4.1 million for the state’s  non-point source water pollution program; the 2016-2017 appropriations for environmental studies represent 2/3 of the annual operating budget for the non-point source water pollution program.

Earmarked Funds for Water and Wastewater Infrastructure.  Most new funding  for DEQ’s Water Infrastructure Division to support local government water and wastewater projects has been earmarked for specific projects. Of the approximately  $18.8 million in water/wastewater funding added to DEQ’s  2016-2017 budget, the legislature directed approximately $16.6 million to the following projects:

$400,000 to an unnamed municipality  (population < 100) for wastewater improvements needed to eliminate illegal wastewater discharges.

$1,000,000 to Duplin County for improvements to the on-site wastewater system at an elementary school

$700,000 to the Town of Fontana Dam for wastewater system upgrades

$14.5 million to fund extension of water lines to cities and counties in an as-yet unformed Regional Water and Sewer Authority intended to include Guilford County, Rockingham County and one or more municipalities. If the Regional Water and Sewer Authority is not formed by June 30, 2017, the funds revert back to the state’ General Fund. (In other words, the funds cannot be allocated to other water and wastewater projects.)

Restoration of Funds for Commercial UST Cleanups and the Water and Air Quality Account:  Some  transportation-related environmental programs have long been funded by a small portion of the state’s gas tax.  Those programs include the Commercial Underground Storage Tank Fund, (which pays to clean up petroleum contamination from leaking underground storage tanks at convenience stores, gas stations and other businesses) and the N.C. air quality program. In 2015, the legislature replaced the on-going gas tax allocation to these two  programs with a one-time appropriation and ordered a program review.  The main purpose of the review was to look at the diversion of gas tax money from the Highway Fund to non-highway uses — a legislative concern for several years. The 2016 budget restores the gas tax allocation to both programs, putting them back on a stable (although not necessarily adequate)  funding source.