USGS faces big budget cut

Suzanne Struglinski

Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2005 | 11:14 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Geological Survey faces an 89 percent budget cut for its work on the Energy Department's Yucca Mountain project. If finalized, government employees and contractors in Nevada and Colorado would lose their jobs by the end of the month.

Congress has not approved the Energy Department's final budget, which could change the outcome. Until it does, the USGS is taking action to prepare for the lower budget that would start Oct. 1. Officials from both agencies are scheduled to meet Sept. 19 to figure out the next steps or how to solve the problem.

"You don't wait until you get your appropriation," said Barbara Wainman, USGS communications director, who said it is normal for the agency to be taking these steps now with the type of budget cut proposed.

"We were anticipating the budget would have a steady decline, but not anticipating such a precipitous drop," Wainman said.

Controversy has surrounded the federal agencies this year when the department discovered e-mails written by USGS employees complaining about adhering to rules on how to document their work. Several government investigations are now in progress, including one by a congressional subcommittee led by Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., to see if any they falsified any data.

Wainman could not specify why the department was proposing such a dramatic cut.

In an Aug. 30 letter to Yucca's deputy director Paul Golan, USGS Associate Director Robert Hirsch said the Energy Department's "present budget projections place our proposed transition, continuity of the science program, and license support in great jeopardy."

Hirsch said the USGS would need to let go 15 contractors by the end of the month and reassign 39 employees or let them go as well. USGS will notify Nevada and Colorado officials that people will lose their jobs.

Wainman said six government employees and two contractors in Nevada would be at risk.

The USGS has worked with the department on the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, since its inception, Wainman said. In 1995 it had a budget of $31.5 million for its research and scientific work. The USGS does not use any of its budget for Yucca, but acts more like a contractor to the Energy Department. The department reimburses the agency for its employees' work, Wainman said.

USGS officials met with aides to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and informed them of the cuts, Reid spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said. The Reid staffers were struck by the fact that the Energy Department had given the USGS no clear reason for the cuts, she said.

Hafen said the timing was "somewhat suspect" coming so soon after the disclosure of the controversial e-mails, Hafen said. The USGS still has an important role to play at Yucca, she said.

"They are still an independent agency -- independent from DOE," Hafen said.

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., sent a letter to the Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman Tuesday demanding answers on the budget reduction.

"At a time when the integrity of the science and overall technical process surrounding the Yucca Mountain Project is being called into question and is the subject of a congressional investigation, how can the DOE ensure that the scientific process meant to assure public safety will not be compromised by such a drastic budget cut?," Gibbons wrote.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said no more money should be spent on Yucca Mountain at all, but because the White House wants to move forward with it, she wonders why the USGS would be cut out.

"I question eliminating funding for work by the USGS given its role in performing scientific assessments at Yucca Mountain and the knowledge base that exists within the agency." Berkley said. "This move is the latest signal that all remaining science at the site is being jettisoned and that there is no interest on the part of the White House in answering lingering questions about the shoddy science and lack of quality assurance that has been well documented."

Berkley said the cuts also give the department a way to get rid of employees "who may know exactly what corners were cut and what findings were doctored" at the project.

Porter has requested a meeting with Hirsch to discus exactly what is happening,he said. The department's action does not surprise him. Porter believes the e-mail controversy is affecting all aspects of the program.

"If they take away the Quality Assurance and the scientists, what is going on there?," Porter said.