The EPA Strikes Back

Opponents now say EPA has flouted the expressed will of Congress.

(Of course, the will of congress had to do with the will of special interests)

Click Here to Add Comment

 

Subject:    The EPA Strikes Back----------------
Date:        Sun, 16 Jul 2000 19:21:27 -0400
From:        Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization:     Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)

The EPA Strikes Back - Thursday , July 13, 2000 ; Page A26

THE ENVIRONMENTAL Protection Agency stirred outrage this week by issuing a major set of clean water rules in the face of a congressional attempt to block them. Opponents thought they'd found a sure-fire way to head off the rule-making by attaching a rider to an appropriations bill that President Clinton didn't want to veto. But the administration issued the regulations before the president signed the bill--appropriately so, given congressional efforts to dictate environmental policy through the back door. The outrage is misplaced.

The rules in question have been open for review and revision for nearly a year. They would enforce a long-neglected part of the Clean Water Act involving what are known as TMDLs, total maximum daily loads of pollution that a body of water can absorb and still be considered clean. Until now EPA and the states have focused on reducing pollution from individual sources, like factories or sewage treatment plants. The method has brought substantial gains, but further progress depends on this broader approach.

Under the new rules states will have to conduct pollution surveys of about 20,000 bodies of water and develop plans for cleaning them up over the next 15 years. In the process, they will have to impose controls on the generalized urban and agricultural runoff that EPA says is the greatest remaining threat to America's waters. The rules drew strong opposition from business, agriculture and forestry interests. Anger ran so deep that last week the House voted to de-fund the office of the Agriculture Department's undersecretary for natural resources and environment because he had worked with EPA on the regulations. To accommodate industry concerns, the administration dropped some forestry and agriculture provisions. It also gave states more flexibility.

Opponents now say EPA has flouted the expressed will of Congress. But their prohibition was slipped into a bill already in conference, with no opportunity for a direct vote on the clean water question. If Congress wants to derail these regulations, it has 60 days to review the rules and openly vote to reject them. That would at least be confronting the issue through the front door. It would also, for the sake of the nation's waters, be the wrong thing to do.

© 2000 The Washington Post Company

Thanks Guys!  Sometimes it takes a little chutzpah to save the world! Steve

TOP
 If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, Email Us. with "subscribe" in the subject line.