#46

300 Natural Resources & Environment:Eliminate Regional EPA Programs

Savings in Millions of Dollars
  • 2016
    422
  • 2017
    423
  • 2018
    424
  • 2019
    429
  • 2020
    439
  • 2021
    449
  • 2022
    459
  • 2023
    471
  • 2024
    480
  • 2025
    489
  • 2016-2020
    2137
  • 2016-2025
    4485

Sources

Savings are expressed as budget authority and were calculated using the FY 2014 enacted spending levels as found in page 1,002 of EPA, “Fiscal Year 2015: Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations,” March 2014. The 2014 enacted level was then increased at the same rate as discretionary spending for 2016–2025, according to the CBO’s most recent August 2014 baseline spending projections.

×

Technical Notes on Scoring

CBO Baseline

Unless otherwise noted, calculations for savings for each recommendation relies on the most recent Congressional Budget Office baseline, as found in “An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024,” published August 27, 2014, has been used.

Savings “Totals”

While totals for the five and 10 year savings are provided by section and for the complete set of recommendations, there are two reasons they should not be viewed as representing total savings for The Budget Book.

First, as noted in the introduction, The Heritage Foundation would recommend that the savings realized in the Function 050 Defense section would stay within the Department of Defense to strengthen the nation’s defense capabilities.

Second, the numbers cannot be deemed to represent the realized savings if every single recommendation were adopted because policy changes made in one program can impact spending levels in other programs.  Thus, the numbers in the table do not reflect any potential interactions between the various policy changes affecting spending or savings.

×

Heritage Recommendation:

Eliminate regional EPA programs that should be owned and managed by state and local governments. This proposal saves $422 million in 2016, and $4.5 billion over 10 years.

Rationale:

Management of the natural habitat by state & local governments is more effective & saves $

Resource management should take into account the fact that environmental conditions will vary from location to location and from time to time. A site- and situation-specific approach takes advantage of the fact that those who are closest to a natural habitat are also those who are best able to manage it. Such practices allow prioritization of funds and the separation of problems into manageable units.

Management of the natural habitat by state & local governments is more effective & saves $

Contributing Expert

Nicolas (Nick) Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

See publications by Nicolas Loris

Nicolas (Nick) LorisHerbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow

Heritage Experts

Jack Spencer oversees Heritage Foundation research on a wide range of domestic economic issues as director of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. Those topics include federal spending, taxes, energy and environment, regulation and retirement savings.

See publications by Jack Spencer

Jack SpencerVice President for the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity

Katie Tubb is a Research Associate and Coordinator in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies

See publications by Katie Tubb

Katie TubbResearch Associate and Coordinator

Additional Reading