A brief story about today's EPA announcement
Federal-level regulation is useful!
I heard about Donald Trumps’s plan to cut EPA staff by 65% while I was sitting in a regional conference session on environmental regulations. About 30 minutes earlier, I had asked the environmental attorneys hosting the session—some of whom were based in D.C.—if they had heard any credible rumors about major blanket staff cuts at EPA, like we’d seen at other agencies. They hadn’t, although it was noted that there was no one from our regional EPA office in attendance at this session.
That is how quickly things are changing, even for those who are totally “in the weeds” of federal government function. Even now, we’re wallowing in a pit of confusion, as Trump may have misspoken, and the 65% cut will be to the budget and not staff. (Obviously, that would still be a large staff reduction.)
The session I attended was about a fairly technical regulation process, about which some “draft guidance” was issued by EPA in 2024. To avoid bogging down the conversation, let’s just say that the guidance was about making sure our poop doesn’t end up in the waterways we use for recreation and fishing, while ensuring that any required fixes aren’t too costly for the affected communities to implement.
In short, the session was about an essential government function that most Americans never need to think about because there are professionals at all levels of government who worry about it for them, paid for by taxes and utility bills. Like many government functions, this one—making sure our poop is disposed of properly—is not exactly controversial.
I mentioned that the session was about “draft guidance”… Given the present state of affairs, it’s very unclear whether it will ever become real guidance. There is always uncertainty when presidential administrations change, but now the uncertainty is not solely because of a change in regulatory priorities or outlook. There is also the simple possibility that no one will be left at EPA who even remembers that this draft guidance exists—and note, it went through a full comment period as required by the Administrative Procedures Act, so considerable effort was put into this policy. Even if there are a few people left at EPA who remember it, will they have the time to submit a final document?
Why does this matter?
If the federal government does not guide the regulatory environment, the responsibility falls on the states. This is not an immediate disaster. In fact, the various state environmental agencies are the entities that largely implement and enforce our environmental laws passed by Congress and the associated regulations issued by EPA. This is federalism, and it’s good! The federal government outlines policy and regulatory processes that must be followed, but the states—who understand their local entities much better than the feds—are able to shape those regulatory processes or (in some cases) make them more stringent according to the needs and wants of the states. The federal government does have enforcement abilities, so that when responsible entities (like a local water treatment agency) are out of compliance with the federal regulations, the people served by that entity have federal recourse.
Without federal employees at the helm, states will be the only fallback for regulation oversight and enforcement. This can backfire in two ways:
(1) states can fail to oversee and enforce. In the case of regulation, especially with at 65% reduction in the federal workforce, this could lead to dirty air, dirty water, and dirty earth, disproportionately distributed among Americans. EPA may get a bad rap, especially in the context of NIMBYism and development, but I strongly suspect that most Americans—red or blue—would be very, very angry if they are subjected to large decreases in the quality of their air and water with no federal response (see, e.g., East Palestine train derailment, where EPA led the settlement that is funding the cleanup). There’s a lot of benefit to having the might of the federal government—including the DOJ—behind you when fighting for restitution.
(2) states can be too stringent. State-level regulation is often guided by what happens in other states. In addition, entities subject to state regulations often refer to practices in other states to support their fights against ill-conceived regulations. There’s little point in enacting a regulation that is impossible to meet for the foreseeable future. States learn from each other, and a lot of that information-sharing is facilitated by the federal government. Without a trustworthy and professional central nexus of knowledge, it will be difficult for states to determine which best practices should be folded into regulations or regulatory processes (like permits).
The critical function of federal regulation is to ensure safety and vitality for all Americans. Federal regulation also provides certainty within a country as large and viewpoint-diverse as our own. Federal regulation may sometimes be burdensome, but clear regulations and regulatory guidance can also be a relief to lower-level jurisdictions and businesses who would otherwise be operating in a vague and ambiguous politicized local regulatory environment. Major staff reductions at federal regulatory agencies will only increase delays and confusion, and will ultimately be very costly for Americans, in terms of both money and quality of life.
Given the title I’ve given this newsletter, you may be wondering—what does Project 2025 say about the EPA? It’ll be worth getting more into it once Zeldin is settled in and we see what changes are actually implemented, but I’ll leave you with this quote:
“A conservative U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will take a more supportive role toward local and state effort, building them up so that they may lead in a meaningful fashion. This will include the sharing of federal resources and agency expertise. Creating environmental standards from the ground up is consistent with the concept of cooperative federalism embedded within many of the agency’s authorizing statutes and will create earnest relationships among local officials and regulated stakeholders. This in turn will promote a culture of compliance.”
While Project 2025 definitely promotes deregulation and downsizing of EPA (especially in research) such that the agency focuses solely on what P25 considers its core environmental functions, nowhere does it suggest a blanket staff reduction by more than 50%. It actually suggests an increase in spending for the Clean Water Act needs survey.