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.

♦ 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.