Geotimes Home | AGI Home | Information Services | Geoscience Education | Public Policy | Programs | Publications | Careers
In January, President Bush delivered a blow to the geosciences with his proposed
budget for fiscal year 2005. The budget effectively would cut the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) by about $18 million, back to fiscal year 2003 funding levels.
Of that loss, the USGS Mineral Resources Program is slated to lose $6 million
dollars, with an additional cut of $750,000 to the program’s information
division.
| “To the best of our
knowledge no one else does this kind of work or has the excess budget to
pick this up.” Kate Johnson, USGS |
Until the budget is finalized, “we can’t answer what exactly will
happen,” says Kate Johnson, head of the Mineral Resources Program, “but
there will be an enormous reduction in the amount of information we can provide.”
The program collects minerals-related data for the United States, as well as
compiles reports on worldwide mineral resources and tracks mineral production.
The eastern, central and western regions of the minerals program collect data
such as stream sediment geochemistry and geographic information on mineral locations.
Users of such data sets include other federal agencies (such as the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers), as well as individuals (such
as academics doing nationwide studies who need the USGS’ broad comprehensive
data sets), companies working on remediation sites, and state and local governments.
“Obviously the [mining] industry uses the information a great deal,”
says Carol Raulston, spokesperson for the National Mining Association (NMA).
“We’re hopeful that Congress will restore the funding.”
If Congress accepts the cuts to the Mineral Resources Program, the broad data
services would not be maintainable, Johnson says, though how extensive the reduction
would be remains to be seen. “To the best of our knowledge no one else
does this kind of work or has the excess budget to pick this up,” she says.
The Bush budget would completely cut the Aggregates and Industrial Minerals
projects, which conduct research on industrial minerals and mining processes.
Also, the minerals information group would take a big hit, diminishing their
current production of approximately 700 reports a year. The reports, released
on a monthly to yearly basis, cover about 90 commodities in the United States
and 180 other nations. “We will produce fewer reports,” Johnson says,
“and will work with users and partners to figure out which to cut.”
Raulston says the cuts to information services are of particular concern because
of the United States’ growing reliance on other countries for mineral resources.
Both vanadium and titanium, among other industrially used minerals in the United
States, come almost entirely from foreign sources, the NMA recently reported
to the National Academy of Sciences. “We would be very concerned if USGS
could no longer provide accurate and reasonably up-to-date information”
for U.S. reserves, she says, should foreign sources fall through.
Chip Groat, director of USGS, also has noted that the agency faces so-called
uncontrollable costs, as do all federal agencies — costs that include rent
and annual salary raises for federal employees. Congress may try to find money
to cover such costs, Johnson says, but with a workforce of almost 400 in the
minerals program alone, the need is substantial. Such costs are “a serious
problem, not limited to the USGS,” she says, and amount to further cuts.
Naomi Lubick
Back to top
|
Geotimes Home | AGI Home | Information Services | Geoscience Education | Public Policy | Programs | Publications | Careers |