Omnibus Cuts SHPOS BY $5 Million - $2 Million Restored to Trust Historic Sites

Preservation Action
2/14/03

In the final days of wrangling over FY '03 spending, preservationists were encouraged by reports that our lobbying was making a difference. Unfortunately, in this time of budget cutting, our letters, phone calls and visits served only to stave off more drastic cuts. The omnibus package approved by Congress last night adopts the President's budget request for
the State Historic Preservation Offices, Tribes, and Save America's Treasures (SAT). The National Trust's Historic Sites Fund, which had not appeared in the President's plan, secured $2 million of its $2.5 million request.

In the end, the Tribes and SAT grants received level funding, $3 million and $30 million respectively. The States were cut by $5 million, putting them at just $34 million. Indeed, with this appropriation, all the gains achieved under the Conservation Spending Category, or CARA-lite, have been effectively erased. Such cuts, combined with budget crisis in nearly every
state, will mean that state offices will be forced to lay off staff, curtail programs, and suspend grants-in-aid to local projects. The consequences to historic resources cannot be fully measured but clearly buildings that might otherwise be receiving planning grants or being nominated to the national register are now in jeopardy. 106 reviews and tax act certification will
now take much longer to complete. Federal agencies who rely on 106 review will clamor for relief probably in the form of "environmental streamlining". Developers will opt out of historic rehabilitation to avoid costly delays.

The omnibus should be considered a wake up call. In an era of budget deficits, war-related commitments, and massive cuts in domestic spending, historic preservation and countless other programs could be left out in the cold unless we work to put this domestic priority back on our Congressional Members radar screens. Lobby Day 2003 may turn out to be our best chance to make a stand against the further erosion of preservation spending.

BACK TO TOP