Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Federal Budget Impact topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Federal budget proposal could cut nearly one-fifth of EGLE air division funding, deputy warns
Summary
At a House Appropriations subcommittee briefing, Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy officials described how a White House FY26 budget proposal to eliminate categorical grants could remove roughly 19% of the Air Quality Division—s funding and said that would affect monitoring and smaller-source work unless Congress acts.
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Environment, Great Lakes and Energy members heard Tuesday that a White House fiscal 2026 budget proposal could eliminate federal categorical grants that fund part of Michigan—s air programs, removing an estimated 19% of the Air Quality Division—s budget.
Travis Bosco, Deputy Director with the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, told the subcommittee that "one of the things [the FY26 proposal] proposed to do ... is proposed to eliminate the categorical grants that the states receive from the federal government for running these federally designated programs. So just in Annette's division, for instance, that's 19% of her budget." He added that past presidential budget proposals have sometimes been revised after Congress and states press their case but said the proposal illustrates how federal decisions can directly affect state programs.
The warning followed a presentation by Annette Switzer, Director of EGLE's Air Quality Division, who described the division's work and the programs that rely on federal funding. Switzer said, "A lot of the funding that we get from the federal government does support our air monitoring network. It also supports some of our staff doing some of the work at smaller sources, which are really important and can be very impactful to people." She said those activities could be affected if federal funding were reduced.
Why it matters: EGLE's monitoring network, compliance work at smaller industrial sources, and some inspection and technical services rely on federal grants. Subcommittee members were briefed that the federal funding supports specific program functions — for example monitoring stations, meteorology, and some staff positions that respond to complaints from communities.
Details from the hearing: Bosco advised the committee that the president's proposal was released the previous Friday and that such proposals do not automatically become law. He said that historically states and Congress have sometimes preserved funding after advocacy. Switzer listed the programs supported by federal funds, including monitoring stations, the BioWatch sampling program, emissions reporting that feeds Title V fee calculations, and inspection work targeting smaller sources.
What was not decided: The committee received the briefing and asked questions; there was no formal subcommittee action taken on funding at the meeting. Members and agency staff noted the potential for congressional action to change the proposal before appropriation decisions are final.
Next steps: Subcommittee members were alerted to the potential effect of the federal budget proposal and asked clarifying questions; staff did not report a follow-up assignment during the session.
