FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Dec. 14, 2010
Contact: Ken or Kate Gooderham -- (239) 489-2616

In defense of earmarks?
Federal beach projects could be collateral damage in any Congressional appropriations crackdown.

Even before the recent midterm Congressional elections, the federal appropriations process known as "earmarks" was garnering a sour reputation in some political quarters. With the rise of a new Republican majority in the House and GOP gains in the Senate, there is talk of banning earmarks altogether. So what are these things, and why should beach advocates care?

Simply put, earmarks are a way to designate funds for a specific use; in federal terms, then, earmarking is the way Congress directs federal expenditures to specific projects or activities. It can be as broad as a Congressional subcommittee setting down specific appropriations amounts for a variety of ongoing federal efforts or projects, or as focused as a single Member of Congress requesting funding for a specific project in his or her district (obviously, the latter are the ones which get more negative notice).

More specifically, some earmarks can be inserted into appropriations bills without receiving further review or public discussion. These can end up favoring one group or individual at the expense of others, and are typically cited as the worst example of "pork." However, proposals to ban earmarks have not limited themselves to these more secret and seniority-based marks, instead encompassing the broader process by which federal projects get funded outside of the budgets proposed by the Executive Branch (the president and staff) or by legislative committees to eventually eliminate any funding requests from individual Members of Congress.

Why should beach backers be concerned? Because, often, it's those individual Members' requests that fund federal beach restoration projects.

Consider the 2009 fiscal year regarding federal beach projects. The president's budget proposal allocated $31,516,000 for beach projects. The House budget more than doubled that to $64,654,000; the Senate budget upped it to $84,841,000; and the conference reconciliation budgets ended up totaling $104,934,999 -- a 233% increase from what the Executive Branch originally put on the table. (History shows this pattern is typical over recent years; in fact, some posit the president's budget leaves out beach projects with the knowledge the House and Senate will ensure they get put in.)

That may be a dismal picture for fervent deficit hawks (even though this is a miniscule percentage of the total federal budget), but it's a glimmer of hope for beach advocates whose federal projects have languished for years awaiting long-overdue funding. Only by working through Members of Congress can these projects get crucial funding -- even though the process often does not provide sufficient lump-sum funding to complete projects, thus necessitating year after year of appropriations requests to achieve enough funds to pay for the federal share for a single project.

Let's remember these projects are not fly-by-night pursuits benefitting only a well-heeled few. Federal beach projects are extensively reviewed and researched by a host of agencies, subject to specific project agreements and cost-benefit analyses and toughened by years of authorization approvals. Entire neighborhoods and communities have worked to make these projects possible, including finding the local and state funding matches necessary to augment any federal funds that are forthcoming. These projects are not a boondoggle, they are a benefit to the coast, a boost to the local economy and a boon to public recreation, storm protection and habitat restoration.

If an earmark crackdown sweeps away all Members' funding requests, this not only will make it more difficult for individual federal projects to win funding favor but it will cede appropriations authority to the Executive Branch and Congressional committees -- where the competition for cash will be more heated and funding success will be more fleeting.

Beach advocates need to watch two crucial issues to be addressed by the incoming Congress:
1) Just what is an earmark? This will define whether established coastal projects are caught up in the funding crackdown or left relatively unscathed to navigate the still treacherous appropriations path.
2) How serious will overall cuts in discretionary non-defense federal spending be pursued? If Congress takes the entitlement programs (e.g. Social Security and Medicare) and defense spending off the cutting board, what's left doesn't add to a lot... but it will be all the Members will be able to cut to earn their deficit deterrence bona fides.
This early in the annual appropriations process, change is easier said than done. But beach advocates with a federal project at stake would be wise to watch how the earmark and funding debates evolve so they can stay ahead of its potential impact on their beach.

# # #

ABOUT ASBPA: Founded in 1926, the ASBPA promotes the integration of science, policies and actions that maintain, protect and enhance the coasts of America. For more information on ASBPA, go to www.asbpa.org, facebook or www.twitter.com/asbpa.