Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 1:01 PM ET, 02/14/2011

Budget 2012: Environmental Protection Agency

By Darryl Fears

President Obama's proposed budget provides $9 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency, noting that that amount represents a $1.3 billion decrease from the previous budget year. But that's unlikely to satisfy Republicans in the House who are sharpening their knives to cut even more from an agency that plans to pressure big polluters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The EPA vowed to restore air and water quality with strict new rules, earning praise from liberal groups but making enemies of manufacturers and their politically conservative supporters who say the rules will add to business costs and eliminate jobs. The administration backpedaled slightly on funding the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, cutting its budget by $125 million.

Locally, funding for restoration of the Chesapeake Bay was increased, buffering an EPA effort to reduce pollution from sediment, phosphorous and nitrogen that flow into the bay each time it rains. That effort is being challenged by farmers who claim in a federal lawsuit that EPA's research regarding the pollution is flawed, and that the agency should not be allowed to enforce measures that will be costly to Bay area farmers.

This post has been updated since it was first published.

View agency budget document (Annotated PDF)

Budget 2012 analysis: Full list of agencies

By Darryl Fears  | February 14, 2011; 1:01 PM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Budget 2012: USDA
Next: Budget 2012: Transportation

Comments

How could you trust the same party that mostly did'nt care about enviornmental anything, and especialy if it got in the way of an oil contract or a dump or something like that. But now they want to say I'll cut more from that budget than Obama. What, is there a contract or several contracts your lining up to gain from?

Posted by: jillrocks2011 | February 14, 2011 4:21 PM | Report abuse

The noun form is "phosphorus," not "phosphorous."

Posted by: Labradorian | February 14, 2011 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company