E.P.A. Chief Changing Rules

[mkmatheson]

I'd like to hear opinions about the piece below from the New York Times of 2 July. As sportsmen and women, there's not a person on this forum who doesn't see the need to protect habitat. It's the only thing that keeps our recreation viable.

In particular, comments on the changes in clean power, clean water, methane leaks, and pesticides and their negative affect on health. This is not meant to provoke a battle of entrenched political positions, but rather to open dialogue in an attempt to square the circle of everyone who benefits from our good fortune of having millions of acres open for recreation and the potential threats our land could face.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/...-chief-pruitt-regulations-climate-change.html

 

[archer wapiti]

Okay. I'll bite.
I'm always torn on this issue and am very suspicious of how things are reported, especially when it's from the NY Times. Apart from the pesticide, which would be troubling if it really does have the effects it is said to have, rolling back laws enacted during the past 8 years isn't exactly going back to the 1960s and the Cuyahoga River catching on fire. Not that that's the bar we want, because that's a very low, awful bar. Without doing a lot of my own research into what these new and newly proposed policies actually mean, it's hard to make any more of a statement than that. There's no nonpartisan analysts out there, I don't believe, so making sense of it all would take some time. Remember, relaxing federal regulations does not mean that the states will relax theirs, and it might even cause them to ratchet up their vigilance.

 

[dcopas78]

It hasn't changed anything on my wastewater discharge limits or the water quality standards in Ohio yet. Ohio EPA is usually pretty stringent on what happens within the state though and in many cases will exceed the federal standards. I doubt I will see a rollback in either of the two, wastewater or water, in my lifetime. In fact, since I've been in wastewater/water treatment the standards have only gotten tighter. And I only see them going that direction in the future. Once the ball is rolling toward cleaner, safer water/air/soil people tend to want to keep it that way, no matter their political affiliation. Everyone except the politicians that is. They are the real sell outs, not the people working everyday in the "pollution" industries. I have a hard time believing there are common, working people going in to work everyday saying "Man I can't wait to get the the oil well, or the wastewater plant so I can release some deadly toxin". It ain't us you got to worry about. It's the greedy suckers living in their high towers or sitting in the statehouses that are cutting corners.

I think it is just like the public lands issue. There is a lot of misinformation out there regarding what doing good for the environment means to common people, like in my neck of the woods. I think education is the key. In my case, it has meant talking to farmers....and home owners.... to control run off from their fields or yards to help keep fertilizers out of the creeks. Harmful algal blooms are a big thing here in Ohio. I've saw more cover crops on fields this winter than I have for several years. This is an encouraging sign that farmers are warming up to the idea of controlling the runoff in winter months which lead to huge blooms in the summer. The pesticides are nasty business and I can only hope that many of the farmers start questioning the companies behind them a little more. I'd be starting if I saw all the 50-60+ year old farmers like I see around here dying of lymphomas and other types of cancer.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

Pruitt is just a special interest backed appointee that is driven to divide people. Do any of these changes better the quality of our air, waters, and lands? It's not like their is a fairy that comes down and waves her magic wand and poof we have abundant wildlife. As our lands, air, waters decline, then so does our fish and wildlife. Also, many of these changes he has made are harmful to human health. Just look at the groups in opposition, "American Public Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the March of Dimes, the National Medical Association, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of American, and the National Environmental Health Association."

I guess the bright side is that all these changes will be undone when a Democrat gets back in the White House. It will be just a matter of how much damage is done. Then, we will see the pendulum swing in the opposite direction. The EPA could, and should, be a fantastic government entity. There is so much work to be done, but unfortunately we have let our politicians make it yet another political football

 

[mkmatheson]

Respondents--

I appreciate your responses. Carefully stated and with information I have no way of knowing. All laws affect each of us in different states in varied ways. My trust is this forum becomes more a place of thoughtful dialogue for things we disagree on, while maintaining the aims for which is was founded.

 

[hank4elk]

I do know there is a lot of over regulation & oversight ,redundant gubberment BS that needs cleaning up.
But I have lived thru the full choking skies,DDT,Agent Orange,oil spills,two headed duck hunts on Kesterson to think any of what this clown brings to the plate is good.
Took a long time to get anything enacted in the 1st place.
Gee,I wonder what is up with the,"Lets just repeal and go back & start over" crap I have been hearing the last 10 yrs???? $$$$

 

[Gr8bawana]

This will all be ok as long as our disaster-in-chief and his appointed cronies can make more $$$.

 

[noharleyyet]

How many new laws did the EPA create during the previous pen and phone admin?

 

[Ben Lamb]

How many new laws did the EPA create during the previous pen and phone admin?

None.

A president, even one as gifted and wonderful as 44, does not have the power to enact legislation. Just sign it in to law.

If you are referring to new rules and regulations that the President legally had the authority to enact, based on the powers delegated to him by Congress, then the answer is: quite a few. Because he had to right the ship after 43 removed so very many of them in the name of energy independence & "regulatory relief."

If you are upset with those, then blame the congress who refused to do their jobs and just obstructed for the last 6 years.

 

[noharleyyet]

So the answer is not 3900 Ben?

 

[Ben Lamb]

We need to establish what the question really is before I can provide an answer.

 

[cgarner]

I think a bigger/sadder trend, starting with POTUS and down to his appointees, is the mentally to think you are more knowledgeable or a mentally of not caring, and not consulting experts that work for you and are in a position to provide expert knowledge and guidance. If every appointee has this mentally, it will be a long 4 years.

 

[Big Fin]

I can see this one headed to the ditch. Keep it focused on the EPA topics of the original post.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I can see this one headed to the ditch. Keep it focused on the EPA topics of the original post.

Ready to comply, fearless leader.

 

[bobbydean]

The Capitan steering his ship away from the shoals.

Much respect.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Pruitt is not the person who should be in charge of the nation's environment. His close allegience to industry rather than citizens should have been a factor in his confirmation, and some senators did bring up his open collussion w/industry in OK.

The rules that Pruitt is rolling back put America on a path to dirtier air, water and less likelihood of meaningful conservation of wildlife habitat. While some claim the rules were onerous to industry, the market does not bear that out, especially when we look at oil, gas and mining.

The Clean Water Rule was supported by sportsmen, conservationists and some ag groups. It was opposed by the industries and large ag groups who would rather pollute than take care of the mess they make. Rolling this back allows large corporations like Tyson to continue to pollute streams w/ chicken waste & it allows mining organizations to pollute waters in headstreams where wild trout will suffer. Rather than make some modifications, the rule was simply eliminated. This a bad move on Pruitt's part.

The Clean Power Plan: Similarly, this rule was supported by sportsmen groups, and some ag groups. It would have created a regulatory system that helped transition the U.S. from a fossil fuel dominated nation to one that was more sustain-ably augmented with renewables, while reducing green house gasses. While the fossil fuel industry cried foul, the increase in burdens would not have amounted to much financially, would not have changed the global decline in coal consumption and would have only rewarded many power companies who are already switching coal plants - many of which are coming to an end of their useful and planned lives - with cheaper, cleaner natural gas.

The Methane Rule: Congress narrowly refused to kill this rule which sought to capture flared methane (because it's cheaper to burn methane at this point than ship it to market - let that sink in). Pruitt, undeterred by the law or by common sense, sought to eliminate this rule as well.

Pruitt may be championed by some as the relief valve industry wants, but the net result will be dirtier air, dirtier water and fewer jobs still. As the article rightly points out, Pruitt has ignored his entire staff in favor of what the oil, gas and coal industries want. This is how you manage an agency when you have an agenda counter to the charter that founded your agency. It is not how to protect the air, water and habitat you are charged with doing.

 

[Irrelevant]

While I disagree with Pruitt's moves for the most part I agree that the States often have as robust if not more robust regulations. The only thing I've seen is that when a major violation occurs the EPA does have a good enforcement team and legal team to deal with the violator.

 

[Ben Lamb]

While I disagree with Pruitt's moves for the most part I agree that the States often have as robust if not more robust regulations. The only thing I've seen is that when a major violation occurs the EPA does have a good enforcement team and legal team to deal with the violator.

EPA grants often fund components of those state programs. With the budget cuts slated for the agency, it puts all state agencies at risk as well.

It's also key to look at the states and see what they've been doing to their environmental standards. Montana, for example, has seem many attempts to weaken current regulatory acts like MEPA (Montana Environmental Policy Act) with a major revision in 2009 that reduced the impact of public input because of the fake fear of litigation stalling permitting (it hadn't). It's much cheaper and easier to change state regulations than executive branch regs or law. $100K spent on comptent lobbyists will yield the same result as $10 million on K street dudes in shiny suits.

EPA rules on clean water and clean air were stronger than state rules for a very specific issue: States were not doing what was needed to curb GHG emissions and move to a more diverse energy portfolio or they were not protecting key headwaters from degradation. These are similar to why we have the Endangered Species Act: States refused to take action on species when under their management, so the fed took over to restore critters until such time as they were sustainable and the state's deserved management again.

 

[Irrelevant]

Yes, but to some degree that's looking in the past not the present. I can mainly speak to my home state as that's basically all I know. While WA was forced into regulation, much like the rest of the country, it has since taken it a step further. WA now has environmental and health and safety regs that are significantly more stringent than the national standards (while individual municipalities sometimes even have another more stringent layer).

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yes, but to some degree that's looking in the past not the present. I can mainly speak to my home state as that's basically all I know. While WA was forced into regulation, much like the rest of the country, it has since taken it a step further. WA now has environmental and health and safety regs that are significantly more stringent than the national standards (while individual municipalities sometimes even have another more stringent layer).

Public Policy works on a continuum, not a linear thought process. The politics of WA are much different than WY or ID. When you look at the whole of the states, enviro regulations, especially in the red states, were either rolled back, or in the process of, since 2009.