Money-Management Musical Chairs

(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)

By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency

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?