Skip to content

A Proposal for Replacing the EPA

September 2, 2014

The year we moved to Cleveland, was the year the Cuyahoga River caught fire.

Leading up to this event, our country had seen fresh water lakes and rivers being polluted, and cities being subjected to air pollution and smog.

Few questioned the importance of clean air and clean water: Few people objected to the work the EPA was undertaking.

For the next two or three decades, the EPA accomplished great things.

Air Quality Improvements compared with GDP and Population Growth

Air Quality Improvements compared with GDP and Population Growth

There came a time, however, where the law of diminishing returns set in, and few actual improvements were made. And today, with 16,000 employees, the EPA has been transformed into a political organization, on a mission that has little to do with the environment, and all to do about control over the American economy and Americans.

While the EPA in Washington DC, was growing, comparable, independent environmental protection organizations were being implemented in each state. These state-centered environmental protection agencies or departments, have developed to the point where they are fully capable of maintaining the environmental gains that have been made.

This is at the heart of a new proposal by Dr. Jay Lehr, Science Director, Heartland Institute, to transform the EPA.

In essence, to devolve the EPA so its functions are assumed by the environmental agencies in each of the 50 states.

His proposal envisions a five-year transition, where the duties of the EPA are transitioned to the state environmental agencies, overseen by a committee of the whole, composed of representatives from each of the 50 state environmental agencies.

The committee of the whole would review all existing regulations and their relevancy to existing legislation, working with Congress to clarify or eliminate regulations not supported by legislation.

The 50 state environmental agencies have the talent to do the job without 16,000 EPA activists overseeing them.

It’s envisioned that this new structure, with the committee of the whole defining environmental needs, and the 50 state environmental agencies overseeing the regulations for their states, would improve the effectiveness of environmental protection, while saving 80% of the existing EPA’s budget.

Quoting from Dr. Lehr’s proposal, “It’s time for the national EPA to go. The path forward is now clear and simple: A five-year transition from a federal government bureaucracy to a Committee of the Whole composed of the 50 state environmental protection agencies.”

This proposal is logical and rational. It’s not a knee-jerk reaction calling for the EPA to be eliminated. It explains why trying to “fix” the EPA is a bad idea.

The complete proposal is available at http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/lehr_-_replacing_epa_0.pdf

 

* * * * * *

These articles can be delivered directly to your mailbox. Subscribe by clicking below the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription, and entering your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know someone who would be interested in these articles you can send him/her a link to the article and suggest he/she subscribes by clicking on the email subscription link under the picture on the right side of the page, and entering their email address.

To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Advertisements
2 Comments leave one →
  1. September 3, 2014 11:42 am

    Exactly how would state agencies deal with interstate pollution issues, e.g. Appalachian states dealing with acid emissions from Ohio, and west-shore Michigan cities dealing with air-quality impairment from emissions in Chicago?

    • September 3, 2014 3:13 pm

      The individual state environmental organizations would identify any interstate problems and bring them to the attention of the Committee of the Whole. The Committee of the Whole would examine the issue and proceed to take action if there was a problem, which, in this case, you infer there was or is. The action could be to ask Congress for appropriate legislation, or, if the legislation already exists, issue the necessary regulations that individual state environmental agencies would then implement.
      It should be noted that the Committee of the Whole would have a staff of around 300, who could examine any such issues, and make recommendations to the Committee of the Whole. The Committee of the Whole would also have the research labs available to provide advice on technical matters.
      The issue would be handled from the bottoms up, from the state level to the Committee of the Whole, rather than from the top down as is currently the case.
      Thank you for your question.
      Please let me know if you have other concerns.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s