Watching Our Water Ways

Environmental reporter Christopher Dunagan discusses the challenges of protecting Puget Sound and all things water-related.
Subscribe to RSS

Shifty spending proposed for toxic cleanup funds

February 12th, 2010 by cdunagan

Yesterday, I talked about living through a period of confusing budget-shifting. I mentioned how federal economic stimulus money is being used for public works projects — such as building a new sewer system in Gorst and a new water-treatment plant for Bremerton.

Today, I’d like to reflect on a couple of small hazardous waste cleanup projects and some juggling involving hundreds of millions of dollars in state cleanup funds.

In years past, the Washington Department of Ecology signed agreements with property owners dealing with hazardous chemicals that had leaked from underground tanks on their property. The owners were required to pay what they could, although some were not able to pay anything. Ecology might then lead the cleanup, using funds from the state’s Model Toxics Control Account. That account derives its funds from a tax on petroleum products, pesticides and other specific chemicals.

The federal economic stimulus program has provided $3.4 million for such leaking underground storage tanks in Washington state. As I reported in the Kitsap Sun this week, work is beginning on a renewed cleanup at Country Junction Store in South Kitsap while a proposed plan would clean up soil near Hansville Store in North Kitsap. These are both small, community stores whose owners signed consent agreements with Ecology years ago.

It just so happens that the Washington Legislature has been taking money out of the state’s toxics account to help balance the state’s general fund budget.

According to a report by Jim Brunner of the Seattle Times, lawmakers diverted $180 million last year and Gov. Chris Gregoire proposes to pull out $80 million this year.

All this comes on the heals of a report exploring ways to finance the cleanup of contaminated sites across the state. The report was requested by the Legislature when it became obvious that existing funds would not be enough to pay for hazardous site cleanup, especially when money is being taken out for the general fund. Quoting from the report, called “Model Toxics Control Act Remedial Action Grants – Alternative Financing Evaluation”:

Demand for MTCA funds is increasing. While the grants have supported closure of many sites, a stream of new smaller projects and a growing number of larger, more complex cleanup projects continues. Coupled with the recent downturn in the economy, these trends have created a gap between the availability of funds and the real need. This situation has increased the uncertainty surrounding the future availability of MTCA funds and the subsequent need to use these limited funds more effectively than the traditional cash grant program.

If you recall, earlier this year environmental groups were proposing a higher fee on oil products to raise money to address stormwater problems throughout Puget Sound. Stormwater is considered the primary source of contaminants to the Sound, and holding back stormwater would effectively reduce toxics getting into the waterway.

Since then, the focus has shifted to tripling the existing MTCA tax of $7 per $1,000 on the wholesale price of hazardous substances. The new money — $13 per $1,000 — would go into other accounts, starting with 69 percent moved into the state’s general fund to help balance that out-of-whack budget. The rest:

  • - 20 percent into a new account to address stormwater
  • - 1.9 percent for oil spill prevention
  • - 2.05 percent for the recovery of Puget Sound
  • - 2.05 percent into a new State Clean Water Account
  • - 5 percent into the Motor Vehicle Account for roads, trails and sidewalks

Under the current proposal, House Bill 3181, more of this new money would be shifted out of the general fund and into the stormwater fund each year — unless the Legislature changes its mind.

What we’re seeing is a lot of shifting of money as lawmakers try to plug a $2.7 billion hole in the state budget while offering environmentalists the hope of addressing Puget Sound cleanup in a meaningful way.

Let me know what you think about this shifty spending plan.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

3 Responses to “Shifty spending proposed for toxic cleanup funds”

  1. BlueLight Says:

    “Let me know what you think about this shifty spending plan.”

    I think all environmental spending plans in Western Washington are shifty. Can you tell me how much state and local governments spent on efforts to “restore” Puget Sound in 2009? Can anyone?

  2. Colleen Smidt Says:

    The shifting is not just on environmental issues.

    The State is backfilling again this year with stimulus funds when it comes to their education obligations. In the Bremerton School District alone, LEA (Levy Equalization Funds) and the last small remnants of I-728 funds that were not able to be legislated away or suspended, are NOT being paid this year with State money from the General Fund, but instead are being paid out of $1.2 million in Federal Stimulus money.

    So what is the money that did not come out of the General Fund being used for? And second now that the stimulus money is all used up, what will happen next year when Peter is no longer around to be robbed by Paul?

  3. manolo blahnik Says:

    The State is backfilling again this year with stimulus funds when it comes to their education obligations. In the Bremerton School District alone, LEA (Levy Equalization Funds) and the last small remnants of I-728 funds that were not able to be legislated away or suspended, are NOT being paid this year with State money from the General Fund, but instead are being paid out of $1.2 million in Federal Stimulus money

    Read more: http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2010/02/12/shifty-spending-proposed-for-toxic-cleanup-funds/#comments#ixzz0g9JWfZAY

Leave a Reply

Before you post, please complete the prompt below.

(Not a trick question) What color is the pink house?

Notify me via email of follow-up comments (without commenting):

Available on Kindle

Subscribe2

Follow WaterWatching on Twitter

Food for thought

"In the end, we will conserve only what we love, we will love only what we understand, and we will understand only what we are taught."Baba Dioum, Senegalese conservationist

Archives

Categories