EPA

=see 2-3capt 619from newbook ggl:
EPAIn 1962 Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was a bestseller; Cuyahoga River caught fire (it had 13 times, going all the way back to 1968; a 1952 fire destroyed more than a million dollars in boats and buildings, but it was a 1969 fire written up in Time that caught people's attention (a person does not drown but decays in it. Powerful images of oil soaked seabirds from the 1969 oil spill in Santa barbara were also fresh in memory.
In 1970 Democratic Sen Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin came up with idea for Earth Day and pete McCloskey recruited as co-chair, that put twenty million Americans in the street, still a record. When ten or so senators in perfectly safe seats were tossed out by the voters for ignoring green issues, the Congress got faith quickly and in quick succession passed NEPA and the other acts that would be the foundation (Clean Air Act 1970, Clean Water Act and pesticides 1972 ; SuperFund 1980). Nixon had no particular interest in the environment, but was sensitive to public opinion, and approved EPA by executive order (which also required CEQ in the executive branch; technically EPA is not a cabinet level post, but is treated as one (since?).First Administrator was William Ruckelshaus, banned DDT, then went off the head the FBI.
In 80's asbestos, reduction of sulphur dioxide (acid rain?) and CFC's (Montreal? Faster and cheaper than predicted; model of now much reviled cap and trade). See Sagebrush rebels: Reagan, Gorsuch, Watt. Cap and trade was Reagan administration plan which worked well with leaded gas, and Montreal protocol was signed in 1987 to phase out CFCs to protect Ozone. Bush 41 put cap and trade into Clean Air Act of 1990 to deal with sulphur that was causing acid rain that was killing forests. It passed with huge majorities in both houses (including McConnell, Thurmond, Gingrich, barton, Inhofe and Upton!). Ten years later, emission were down 40% at a quarter cost of the estimate, utility rates were lower in real terms and the economy added sixteen million jobs (Weiss). Bush 43 included cap and trade in Clear Skies? [selloff , crimes against nature] McCain and even Palin favored in 2008 run, as Gingrich had done the year before, but 180's by 2009 (350K from coal and oil in first quarter of 2010). “carbon tax “ like death tax and even death panels now anathema, especially to tea Partiers, quickly slide into black helicopter Agenda 21 fantasies.
2007 Mass v EPA SCOTUS required EPA to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, including tailpipe emissions. Roberts and Scalia dissented.
2010 CoC, API NAM, Freedomworks, CEI, AG Texas (abbot and gov perry) , Alabama and Virginia (Cooch) sued to overturn the endangerment finding; know they can't win, so “political obfuscation” according to Bill Sanpe at CBD, a political and media strategy, not a legal one, building on recent Climategate and IPCC gaffs. (Sheppard 2010). CoC says we can adapt, by for example turning up the AC.
---For example, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sued based on Climategate to block EPA CO2 action, as well as to suppress the National Assessment of Climate Change.
NAM 2011 Coalition for Responsible Regulation tried to beat new CAFE
Feb 2012 Gov Perry (also Wyo) went to US Court of Appeals, Sentelle argued climate science is a hoax
Lisa Jackson, first black admin, fight the good fight, got CAFE, limits on mercury but a number of significant setbacks (Obama got pressure from GOP on air rules) and bailed at the end of first term (not uncommon, to be fair); drag feet on McCarthy, nuclear option showdown. Endless votes to stop EPA from regulating CO2 (Upton), or even abolish it (Burr, combine with DOE, but reform” does not have a good track record). GOP Chair of House Energy and Commerce Comm Fred Upton said Jackson would need her own parking place because of his intent to constantly ask questions. EPA has been calling out Dept of State on shoddy XL assessment. Richard Windsor nonsense.
BULB bill? Part of a larger pattern of trying to roll back established and commonsensical environmental legislation? Eg? Look tough on green? Repair rep?
Energy Tax Prevention Act HR 910 Upton 2011
Sentelle: FREE summer camp for judges?history EPA, dioxins etc<a href="https://kpfa.org/episode/against-the-grain-june-24-2019/">https://kpfa.org/episode/against-the-grain-june-24-2019/</a>The Environmental Protection Agency is tasked with safeguarding the public from toxic exposure.  But Jonathan Latham, executive director of the Bioscience Research Project, says that The Poison Papers — an enormous trove of documents — indicate that the EPA and the chemical industry often work hand in hand to mislead us into thinking that toxic chemicals are safe for human use. (Encore presentation.)Resources:<a href="https://www.poisonpapers.org/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">The Poison Papers</a><a href="https://bioscienceresource.org/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">Bioscience Research Project</a><a href="http://www.alternet.org/print/personal-health/how-big-agribusiness-firm-infiltrated-epa-and-made-mockery-science">http://www.alternet.org/print/personal-health/how-big-agribusiness-firm-infiltrated-epa-and-made-mockery-science</a>=

1/14 both house and senate attack EPA (house reg of coal plants)

Sheppard

kate.sheppard@huffingtonpost.com

Mitch McConnell Aims To Torpedo EPA Carbon Rules With Obscure Legislative Tool

Posted: 01/16/2014 4:31 pm EST  |  Updated: 01/17/2014 11:01 am EST

WASHINGTON -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is seeking to block new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency regarding carbon emission limits for coal-fired power plants before the rules are even finalized.

On Thursday, McConnell announced that he is filing a "resolution of disapproval" to stop the EPA "from imposing its anti-coal regulation."

The senator wants to employ the little-used Congressional Review Act of 1996, or CRA, which sets up an expedited process for Congress to overturn regulations from the executive branch. The only time the law has been wielded successfully was in 2001, when Republicans used it to block new ergonomics rules from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued during the Clinton years. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) tried to employ the law in 2010 to block the EPA's finding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health, but the measure failed (despite drawing yes votes from six Democrats).

Still, there is one definite advantage for McConnell in turning to the law: A CRA resolution requires only a simple majority to pass.

McConnell said that his Kentucky colleague Sen. Rand Paul is a co-sponsor of the current measure, along with 39 other Senate Republicans.

"The majority leader and his Washington Democrat caucus now have a choice," McConnell said in a floor speech Thursday. "Are they going to stand with the coal families under attack in places like Kentucky and West Virginia and Colorado, or are they going to continue to stand with the powerful left-wing special interests that want to see their jobs eliminated?"

McConnell's announcement struck some as a little premature, given that the EPA has yet to even finalize its greenhouse gas rules for carbon dioxide. The agency just published draft rules last week. But McConnell has asked the Government Accountability Office whether he can employ the CRA before the regulations are finalized, according to a letter obtained by National Journal.

Environmental advocates criticized his move. "Senator McConnell's attempt to invoke this law prematurely is a meritless deep reach into his desperate bag of tricks to derail sound climate policy Americans support," said Jim Murphy, senior counsel for the National Wildlife Federation.

===

In spring 1970, Senator Gaylord Nelson created Earth Day as a way to force this issue onto the national agenda. Twenty million Americans demonstrated in different U.S. cities, and it worked

In December 1970, Congress authorized the creation of a new federal agency to tackle environmental issues, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. also mcCloskey semper fi

===

BS

BREAKING: ‘Richard Windsor’ EPA scandal spreads, EPA Administrator James Martin resigns over hidden email accounts

Posted on February 19, 2013 by Anthony Watts

From a press release:

Vitter: New Richard Windsor Emails Show EPA’s Transparency Problem More Widespread

New emails show acting Administrator Perciasepe used non-official email to conduct official business. EPA Region 8 Administrator, who is resigning this week, is being investigated for the same problem.

(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), today released findings from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) second tranche of Richard Windsor emails. The release shows that acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe used a private email account to conduct official business, similar to Region 8 Administrator, James Martin, who is the subject of an ongoing investigation launched by Vitter and U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (OGR) Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

Sen. Vitter also announced today that he has learned Martin is resigning this week, less than two weeks after hiring legal counsel and following a letter from Vitter and Issa. Read more about Vitter and Issa’s investigation into Martin here.

“Region 8 Administrator Martin is likely resigning this week in part because of the open investigation about his use of a non-official email account to conduct official business,” said Vitter. “Now we know that Lisa Jackson’s acting replacement, Bob Perciasepe, appears to have been doing the same thing to dodge the agency’s mandatory recordkeeping policy. EPA owes us all some answers about their absolute disregard for transparency, especially from their acting administrator or any potential nominee to be administrator.”

In documents obtained by Senate EPW and House OGR committees, Region 8 Administrator Martin used a non-official, me.com, e-mail account, which may have been an attempt to circumvent the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and Congressional oversight. The Richard Windsor email release shows that Bob Perciasepe was using a non-official, “perciasepe.org,” email account, too.

You can find an example of Perciasepe’s non-official email on page 470 at the following link to the EPA’s second release of Richard Windsor emails: http://www.epa.gov/epafoia1/docs/Second-Release-Part-O.pdf .

“There’s a lot of information in these emails that warrant further investigations, but it is clear that EPA continues to abuse exemptions under FOIA law with significant redactions of information to avoid transparency,” Vitter added

EPA instructs its employees to “not use any outside e-mail account to conduct official Agency business.” However, the documents obtained suggest that Administrator Martin regularly used a non-official e-mail account to conduct official business, and acting Administrator Perciasepe may be doing the same.

2/19/13 2:07 PM EST via Politico email alert

EPA Region 8 Administrator James Martin has resigned from his post, effective Friday, Feb. 22, EPA spokeswoman Alisha Johnson confirmed to POLITICO. But she denied the allegation from EPW Ranking Member Sen. David Vitter that the decision came in response to his discovery that Martin had used a personal account for his government duties. Johnson said Martin’s decision to leave is for “personal reasons.” Regarding Vitter’s email claims, the agency says that “the Regional Administrator does not use his personal email account to conduct official business. That Mr. Martin responded to one email sent to his personal email account to confirm a meeting that appears on his official government calendar does not alter that fact.” EPA says the email was produced for Vitter when, “In an abundance of caution and to be fully transparent, the Regional Administrator searched his personal email account and produced any email that contained the term the ‘Environmental Defense Fund,’ which are the emails cited by Senator Vitter and Chairman Issa in their inquiry,” the agency’s statement says. “In producing these documents, the EPA and the Regional Administrator have gone beyond any legal requirements in our efforts to ensure full transparency.”

==

<h1 class="page-title" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: background-color 0.25s linear 0s, border-color 0.25s linear 0s, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear 0s, box-shadow 0.25s linear 0s, color 0.25s linear 0s, opacity 0.25s linear 0s, text-shadow 0.25s linear 0s, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear 0s; line-height: 1.1; margin: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; padding: 0.3125em 0px 0.5em; color: rgb(21, 21, 21); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">EPA History (1970-1985)</h1>

<p style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 1.5em; word-wrap: break-word;"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: background-color 0.25s linear 0s, border-color 0.25s linear 0s, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear 0s, box-shadow 0.25s linear 0s, color 0.25s linear 0s, opacity 0.25s linear 0s, text-shadow 0.25s linear 0s, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear 0s; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">by Phil Wisman <br style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear;" />

<span style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear;">[EPA - November 1985]

<li style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear;"><a href="http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-history-1970-1985#bg" style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; margin: -2px; padding: 2px; color: rgb(77, 142, 77); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);">Background: Why EPA was Established</a></li>

<li style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear;"><a href="http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-history-1970-1985#ruckelshaus" style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; margin: -2px; padding: 2px; color: rgb(77, 142, 77); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);">William D. Ruckelshaus (1st term)</a></li>

<li style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear;"><a href="http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-history-1970-1985#train" style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; margin: -2px; padding: 2px; color: rgb(77, 142, 77); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);">Russell E. Train</a></li>

<li style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear;"><a href="http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-history-1970-1985#costle" style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; margin: -2px; padding: 2px; color: rgb(77, 142, 77); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);">Douglas M. Costle</a></li>

<li style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear;"><a href="http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-history-1970-1985#burford" style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; margin: -2px; padding: 2px; color: rgb(77, 142, 77); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);">Anne M. Gorsuch Burford</a></li>

<li style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear;"><a href="http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-history-1970-1985#ruckelshaus2" style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; margin: -2px; padding: 2px; color: rgb(77, 142, 77); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);">William D. Ruckelshaus (2nd term)</a></li>

<li style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear;"><a href="http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-history-1970-1985#thomas" style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; margin: -2px; padding: 2px; color: rgb(77, 142, 77); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);">Lee M. Thomas</a></li>

</ul>

<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: background-color 0.25s linear 0s, border-color 0.25s linear 0s, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear 0s, box-shadow 0.25s linear 0s, color 0.25s linear 0s, opacity 0.25s linear 0s, text-shadow 0.25s linear 0s, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear 0s; line-height: 1.1; margin: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; padding: 0px 0px 0.4em;"><a id="bg" name="bg" style=" box-sizing: border-box; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; margin: -2px; padding: 2px; color: rgb(51, 102, 153);">Background: Why EPA was Established</a></h2>

For years, raw sewage, industrial and feedlot wastes had been discharged into rivers and lakes without regard for the cumulative effect that made our waters unfit for drinking, swimming, and boating. Smokestack omissions and automobile exhausts made air pollution so bad in certain communities that some people died and many were hospitalized. The land itself was being polluted by indiscriminate dumping of municipal and industrial wastes and some very toxic chemicals that would later come to the fore when their steel drum containers would rust and leak hazardous materials into soil and aquifers.

For decades Americans had assumed that air and water were free and plentiful and the industrial community gave little thought to pollution. Following World War II, however, several developments changed this picture. The U.S. experienced a vast increase in throw-away packaging: cans, bottles, plastics, and paper products--and the introduction into the marketplace of thousands of new synthetic organic chemicals. As a result of this deluge of waste land toxic materials, the earth's automatic, self-cleansing, life support systems became increasingly threatened.

By the 1960s it was obvious that decisive steps had to be taken to correct this imbalance and to prevent future reoccurrences. People from all walks of life and from every part of the political spectrum were expressing their anxieties. Books like Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" became best sellers. Foundations, institutes, clubs, college curricula and corporate departments were formed to understand the problem and to arrive at solutions. Environmental agencies wore being created or given added responsibilities in most State governments.

It was in this atmosphere that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created in 1970. EPA was not a carefully crafted well integrated organization in the beginning. President Nixon, by Executive Order "reorganized" the Executive Branch by transferring 15 units from existing organizations into a now independent agency, EPA. Four major Government agencies were involved.

It was not an easy birth. Air, Solid Waste, Radiological Health, Water Hygiene, and Pesticide Tolerance functions and personnel had been transferred from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Water Quality and Pesticide Label Review came from the Interior Department; Radiation Protection Standards came from the Atomic Energy Commission and the Federal Radiation Council; Pesticide Registration came from the Department of Agriculture. Employees so transferred were accustomed to four varieties of policies, procedures, and administrative practices. It took several years under an able Administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus, to bring relative order out of the resulting chaos.

During this period a great many new environmental laws were passed and some old ones resurrected and refurbished as well as energy legislation that impacted on the environment. Other environmental type laws were enacted, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act (1972), the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (1972), the Endangered Species Act (1973), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1976), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972), the Deepwater Ports and Waterways Safety Act (1974), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1974), the Water Resources Planning Act (1977), the Water Resources Research Act (1977), the Environmental Quality Improvement Act (1970), several amendments to the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act, and the Environmental Education Act. There was renewed enforcement of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

The Rules and Regulations issued under these laws numbered into many thousands. In its early years EPA alone placed about 1500 rulemaking notices in the Federal Register annually.

<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: background-color 0.25s linear 0s, border-color 0.25s linear 0s, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear 0s, box-shadow 0.25s linear 0s, color 0.25s linear 0s, opacity 0.25s linear 0s, text-shadow 0.25s linear 0s, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear 0s; line-height: 1.1; margin: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; padding: 0px 0px 0.4em;"><a id="ruckelshaus" name="ruckelshaus" style=" box-sizing: border-box; transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; -webkit-transition: background-color 0.25s linear, border-color 0.25s linear, -webkit-box-shadow 0.25s linear, box-shadow 0.25s linear, color 0.25s linear, opacity 0.25s linear, text-shadow 0.25s linear, -webkit-transform 0.25s linear; margin: -2px; padding: 2px; color: rgb(51, 102, 153);">William D. Ruckelshaus

(December 4, 1970 to April 30, 1973)</a></h2>

A few weeks earlier, days after taking office, he made the charge to the nation's cities.

"In a surprise announcement," said the Wall Street Journal, Ruckelshaus warned the cities of Atlanta, Detroit, and Cleveland to halt alleged violations of water pollution standards within 180 days or face a possible Federal suit. Atlanta was cited for what he termed "the massive discharge of pollutants" into the Chattahoochee River. Detroit and Cleveland were cited for polluting the Lake Erie basin.

Ruckelshaus came to grips with pesticide issues just as quickly. DDT was the most popular and widely used insecticide in the world, recognized for its effectiveness, versatility, and persistence, and for its reasonable cost. The United Nations and the Agency for International Development used it for control of malaria. However, a report of the President's Science Advisory Board in 1963, followed by Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" in 1964 drew attention to side effects of the pesticide. During the succeeding six years the public's concern became thoroughly aroused. The U.S. Department of Agriculture canceled DDT registrations for uses affecting some food crops and livestock. By 1970, agitation by the Environmental Defense Fund, the Audubon Society, the National Wildlife Federation, the Izaak Walton League, and other environmental groups led to EPA's first major decision to ban a chemical substance.

Transfer of the pesticide registration function from the Agriculture Department to EPA in December 1970 enabled the Administrator one month later, to announce his intent to cancel all remaining Federal registrations for DDT (some 320products) primarily affecting cotton, citrus fruits, and certain vegetables. Seven months of hearings followed, with 8900 pages of expert testimony from 125 witnesses. They dealt with effects, of DDT on fish, wildlife, and humans and with the negative aspects of malaria control and economics. In June 1972 Mr. Ruckelshaus announced his decision to cancel all remaining crop uses. This decision was upheld in .

The term of EPA's first Administrator was marked by a plethora of environmental laws, rules and regulations: the 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act; Environmental Impact Statements required by the National Environmental Policy Act (1970); the Resource Recovery Act (1970); guidelines for the limited control of radiation (1972); the Federal Environmental Pesticides Control Act (1972); Safety Standards for Farmworkers (1974); regulation of land use (1972); and totally revised water pollution legislation (1972), shifting the control mechanism from "water quality" to "effluent limitations" with a goal of "zero discharge." There was legislation mandating cleanup and prevention of oil spills, acid mine drainage, and ocean dumping; and a Convention signed by 80 countries prohibiting ocean dumping of heavy metals, DDT, PCBs, persistent plastics and radioactive wastes, chemical and biological warfare agents, and requiring special permits for cyanides, fluorides, and medium and low level radioactive wastes. Congress appropriated $18 billion for sewage treatment grants. EPA argued that accelerating this activity would lead to approving projects that were neither environmentally effective nor cost effective. The President accused Congress of budget wrecking and impounded $9 billion of it.

The shortcomings of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947 (FIFRA), that is, the inability to control actual usage of pesticides led to passage of the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 that contained several innovations. It provided for regulation of use, not just the label, for reregistration of all pesticides including those sold in intrastate commerce, for registration of manufacturing plants, and for national monitoring of pesticide residues.

In the fall of 1973, Russell E. Train succeeded Mr. Ruckelshaus, who had been called upon to head the FBI.

</div>

wiki

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_agencies" title="List of United States federal agencies" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none;">agency</a> of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government" title="United States federal government" class="mw-redirect" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none;">U.S. federal government</a> which was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#cite_note-2" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; white-space: nowrap; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">[2]</a> The EPA was proposed by President <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon" title="Richard Nixon" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">Richard Nixon</a> and began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order" title="Executive order" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">executive order</a>. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reorganization_Plan_No._3" title="Reorganization Plan No. 3" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none;">order establishing the EPA</a> was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#cite_note-3" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; white-space: nowrap; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">[3]</a>The agency is led by its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrator_of_the_Environmental_Protection_Agency" title="Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none;">Administrator</a>, who is appointed by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States" title="President of the United States" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none;">president</a> and approved by Congress. The current administrator is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_McCarthy" title="Gina McCarthy" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none;">Gina McCarthy</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#cite_note-4" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; white-space: nowrap; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">[4]</a> The EPA is not a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cabinet" title="United States Cabinet" class="mw-redirect" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">Cabinet</a>department, but the administrator is normally given <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_rank" title="Cabinet rank" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">cabinet rank</a>.

The EPA has its headquarters in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,D.C." title="Washington, D.C." style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">Washington, D.C.</a>, regional offices for each of the agency's ten <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#EPA_regions" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">regions</a>, and 27 laboratories. The agency conducts environmental assessment, research, and education. It has the responsibility of maintaining and enforcing national standards under a variety of environmental laws, in consultation with state, tribal, and local governments. It delegates some permitting, monitoring, and enforcement responsibility to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.state" title="U.S. state" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">U.S. states</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States" title="Native Americans in the United States" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">Native American tribes</a>. EPA enforcement powers include fines, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_(law)" title="Sanctions (law)" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">sanctions</a>, and other measures. The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts.

The agency has approximately 17,000 full-time employees.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#cite_note-emp-5" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; white-space: nowrap; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">[5]</a> and engages many more people on a contractual basis. More than half of EPA human resources are engineers, scientists, and environmental protection specialists; other groups include legal, public affairs, financial, and information technologists.

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#History" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">1 History</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#EPA_offices" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">2 EPA offices</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#EPA_regions" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">3 EPA regions</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Related_legislation" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">4 Related legislation</a>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Water" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">4.2 Water</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-8" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Endangered_species" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">4.4 Endangered species</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-9" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Hazardous_waste" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">4.5 Hazardous waste</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-10" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Programs" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">5 Programs</a>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-11" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Energy_Star" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">5.1 Energy Star</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-12" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Pesticide" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">5.2 Pesticide</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-13" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Environmental_Impact_Statement_Review" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">5.3 Environmental Impact Statement Review</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-14" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Safer_Detergents_Stewardship_Initiative" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">5.4 Safer Detergents Stewardship Initiative</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-15" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Fuel_economy" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">5.5 Fuel economy</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-16" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Air_quality" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">5.6 Air quality</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-17" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Oil_pollution" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">5.7 Oil pollution</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-18" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#WaterSense" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">5.8 WaterSense</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-19" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Drinking_water" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">5.9 Drinking water</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-20" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Radiation_Protection" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">5.10 Radiation Protection</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-21" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Research_vessel" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">6 Research vessel</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-22" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Advance_identification" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">7 Advance identification</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-23" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Controversies" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">8 Controversies</a>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-24" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#The_.22LT2.22_Drinking_Water_Controversy" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">8.1 The "LT2" Drinking Water Controversy</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-25" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Fiscal_Mismanagement" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">8.2 Fiscal Mismanagement</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-26" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Fuel_economy_2" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">8.3 Fuel economy</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-27" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Global_warming" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">8.4 Global warming</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-28" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Libraries" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">8.5 Libraries</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-29" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Mercury_emissions" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">8.6 Mercury emissions</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-30" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#9.2F11_air_ratings" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">8.7 9/11 air ratings</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-31" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Very_fine_airborne_particulates" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">8.8 Very fine airborne particulates</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-32" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Political_pressure_and_Scientific_Integrity" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">8.9 Political pressure and Scientific Integrity</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-33" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Environmental_justice" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">8.10 Environmental justice</a>

<li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-34" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#Barriers_to_enforcing_environmental_justice" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">8.10.1 Barriers to enforcing environmental justice</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-35" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#List_of_EPA_administrators" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">9 List of EPA administrators</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-37" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#References" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">11 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-38" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#External_links" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">12 External links</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

<h2 style="background-image: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-weight: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 19.2px;">History<span class="mw-editsection mw-editsection-expanded" style="user-select: none; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; padding-right: 0.25em; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate; direction: ltr;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency&action=edit&section=1" title="Edit section: History" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">edit source</a> | <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency&veaction=edit&section=1" title="Edit section: History" class="mw-editsection-visualeditor" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">editbeta</a>]</h2>

The EPA began regulating <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases" title="Greenhouse gases" class="mw-redirect" style="line-height: 19.2px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none;">greenhouse gases</a> (GHGs) from mobile and stationary sources of air pollution under the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)" title="Clean Air Act (United States)" style="line-height: 19.2px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none;">Clean Air Act (CAA)</a> for the first time on January 2, 2011. Standards for mobile sources have been established pursuant to Section 202 of the CAA, and GHGs from stationary sources are controlled under the authority of Part C of Title I of the Act. See the page <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Greenhouse_Gases_Under_the_Clean_Air_Act" title="Regulation of Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act" class="mw-redirect" style="line-height: 19.2px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none;">Regulation of </a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Greenhouse_Gases_Under_the_Clean_Air_Act" title="Regulation of Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act" class="mw-redirect" style=" line-height: 19.200000762939453px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none;">Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act</a> for further information.

In 1970, President Richard Nixon proposed an executive reorganization that would consolidate many of the federal government's environmental responsibilities under one agency, a new Environmental Protection Agency. That reorganization proposal was reviewed and passed by the House and Senate.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#cite_note-8" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; white-space: nowrap; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">[8]</a> For at least 10 years before NEPA was enacted,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#cite_note-Scoop-9" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; white-space: nowrap; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">[9]</a>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTRS" title="Wikipedia:NOTRS" class="mw-redirect" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">better source needed</a>]Congress debated issues that the act would ultimately address.[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">citation needed</a>] The act was modeled on the Resources and Conservation Act of 1959,[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">citation needed</a>] introduced by Senator<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Murray" title="James E. Murray" style=" line-height: 19.200000762939453px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none;">James E. Murray</a> in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86th_United_States_Congress" title="86th United States Congress" style=" line-height: 19.200000762939453px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none;">86th Congress</a>.[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">citation needed</a>] That bill would have established an environmental advisory counsel in the office of the President, declared a national environmental policy, and required the preparation of an annual environmental report.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#cite_note-10" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; white-space: nowrap; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">[10]</a>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTRS" title="Wikipedia:NOTRS" class="mw-redirect" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">better source needed</a>] In the years following the introduction of Senator Murray's bill, similar bills were introduced and hearings were held to discuss the state of the environment and Congress's potential responses to perceived problems. In 1968, a joint House-Senate colloquium was convened by the chairmen of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (Senator Henry Jackson) and the House Committee on Science and Astronautics (Representative George Miller) to discuss the need for and potential means of implementing a national environmental policy. In the colloquium, some Members of Congress expressed a continuing concern over federal agency actions affecting the environment.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#cite_note-11" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; white-space: nowrap; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">[11]</a>Beginning in the late 1950s<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#cite_note-6" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; white-space: nowrap; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">[6]</a> and through the 1960s, Congress reacted to increasing public concern about the impact that human activity could have on the environment. A key legislative option to address this concern was the declaration of a national environmental policy.[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">citation needed</a>] Advocates of this approach argued that without a specific policy, federal agencies were neither able nor inclined to consider the environmental impacts of their actions in fulfilling the agency's mission.[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">citation needed</a>] The statute that ultimately addressed this issue was the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act" title="National Environmental Policy Act" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">National Environmental Policy Act of 1969</a> (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347).<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency#cite_note-7" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; white-space: nowrap; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">[7]</a> Senator Henry M. Jackson proposed and helped write S 1075, the bill that eventually became the National Environmental Policy Act. The law was signed by President Nixon on January 1, 1970. NEPA was the first of several major environmental laws passed in the 1970s. It declared a national policy to protect the environment and created a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the Executive Office of the President.[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed" style=" text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">citation needed</a>] To implement the national policy, NEPA required that a detailed statement of environmental impacts be prepared for all major federal actions significantly affecting the environment. The "detailed statement" would ultimately be referred to as an environmental impact statement (EIS).

On July 17, 2013, the EPA renamed its headquarters the William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building, after former president Bill Clinton.

==

capt 8/15/13

===

What do Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and George W. Bush have in common?

Yes, OK, obviously they were all Republican presidents. But as of Friday, there is something else that ties them all together.

EPA administrators who worked for all of those presidents came out in support of stronger actions on climate change, co-signing a powerful op-ed in The New York Times supporting Barack Obama’s climate actions and arguing that “the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change.”

Here are some highlights from the op-ed, which was written by William D. Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas, William K. Reilly, and Christine Todd Whitman:

The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes “locked in.”

A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. Dealing with this political reality, President Obama’s June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would deliver real progress. He will use his executive powers to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nation’s power plants and spur increased investment in clean energy technology, which is inarguably the path we must follow to ensure a strong economy along with a livable climate. …

Rather than argue against his proposals, our leaders in Congress should endorse them and start the overdue debate about what bigger steps are needed and how to achieve them — domestically and internationally. …

We can have both a strong economy and a livable climate. All parties know that we need both. The rest of the discussion is either detail, which we can resolve, or purposeful delay, which we should not tolerate.

Mr. Obama’s plan is just a start. More will be required. But we must continue efforts to reduce the climate-altering pollutants that threaten our planet. The only uncertainty about our warming world is how bad the changes will get, and how soon. What is most clear is that there is no time to waste.

The op-ed also states that there “is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts” of global warming. But, then, nobody should need a bunch of former EPA chiefs to tell them that.

Source

A Republican Case for Climate Action, The New York Times

==

NEPA brought ppl into checks and bal 38; post watergate reforms/post earth day revived trad FF dominance of legis; FOIA ups democ/ppl power since we have access to info/sci rfk2

==

ProPublica's Abrahm Lustgarten reports:

When the Environmental Protection Agency abruptly retreated on its multimillion-dollar investigation into water contamination in a central Wyoming natural gas field last month, it shocked environmentalists and energy industry supporters alike.

In 2011, the agency had issued a blockbuster draft report saying that the controversial practice of fracking was to blame for the pollution of an aquifer deep below the town of Pavillion, Wy. – the first time such a claim had been based on a scientific analysis.

The study drew heated criticism over its methodology and awaited a peer review that promised to settle the dispute. Now the EPA will instead hand the study over to the state of Wyoming, whose research will be funded by EnCana, the very drilling company whose wells may have caused the contamination.

Industry advocates say the EPA’s turnabout reflects an overdue recognition that it had over-reached on fracking and that its science was critically flawed.

But environmentalists see an agency that is systematically disengaging from any research that could be perceived as questioning the safety of fracking or oil drilling, even as President Obama lays out a plan to combat climate change that rests heavily on the use of natural gas... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/epa-fracking-study-pavillion-wyoming_n_3542365.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

===

rfk2: gov sued on atrazine, then hired syngenta to study

----

Each year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gives the green light for a score of agricultural chemicals to come to market. But the chemicals the EPA registers for use have little connection with the frequently more toxic substances sold by the millions of pounds to unsuspecting American consumers

Dr. Warren Porter, a professor of zoology and environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin, likens the EPA’s process for registering chemicals to “bait and switch” sales tactics. Pesticide makers win approval for specific active ingredients, and then mix those chemicals with a number of other ingredients. The result is a far different formulation that has bypassed government safety reviews and is then sold to the public.

“It’s like releasing molecular bulls in a china shop,” Porter said. “Virtually no pesticide is registered by the EPA. The EPA only registers the active ingredient.”

Atrazine has been found to damage sexual development in frogs. Here two male frogs copulate, and one will lay eggs. / Photo courtesy of Dr. Tyrone Hayes

Porter and other scientists have found that once the EPA registers a specific chemical for use, the manufacturer then combines it with a number of other solvents, surfactants and inert ingredients that were never part of the registration process. The goal in formulating pesticides, often, is to increase toxicity and facilitate penetration of the toxin through the cell wall where it then kills mitochondria and damages DNA.

Even ingredients labeled “inert” are proving to alter the properties of the approved active ingredients, a growing number of scientists are finding. The result, their research suggests, is a chemical time bomb with significantly increased toxicity, and often with a longer half-life in the environment.

“The EPA is registering one thing and something very different is being sold to the public,” Porter said....http://100r.org/2012/02/epa-oversight-weighing-the-parts-ignoring-the-whole/

==

kicking up a fuss on XL

---

Twelve members of Congress want to make a bad situation even worse, sponsoring the industry-backed General Duty Clarification Act; its banal title hiding that, as reported by Tim Murphy at Mother Jones magazine, “The bill is designed to sap the Environmental Protection Agency of its powers to regulate safety and security at major chemical sites, as prescribed by the Clean Air Act.”

“‘We call that the Koch brothers bill,’ Greenpeace legislative director Rick Hind says, because the bill’s sponsor, GOP Rep. Mike Pompeo, represents the conservative megadonors’ home city of Wichita, Kansas. (The sponsor of the sister legislation in the senate, GOP Sen. Pat Roberts, represents the Kochs’ home state of Kansas.) The brothers have huge investments in fertilizer production, and Hind thinks they’ll ultimately get what they want, whether or not the bill becomes law.”

No coincidence, perhaps, that the sponsors of the House bill and Senator Roberts, Public Campaign reports, “have collectively taken over $670,000 from the chemical manufacturing industry over their careers.” Since 2011, the industry has spent $85.1 million lobbying.

Congress quietly acquiesces as the regulations meant for our safety are whittled away. The progressive website ThinkProgress notes that even though food related infections — which kill 3,000 and sicken 48 million Americans each year — rose last year, congressional and White House budget cuts may mean up to 600 fewer food inspectors at meat and poultry plants, leaving it up to the industry to police itself. That rot you’re smelling isn’t just some bad hamburger....

http://billmoyers.com/2013/04/26/do-nothing-congress-gives-inertia-a-bad-name/

===

stalls air rules : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/epa-may-delay_n_2884697.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

==

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec12/epa_12-27.html

...

When Uranium Energy Corp. sought permission to launch a large-scale mining project in Goliad County, Texas, it seemed as if the Environmental Protection Agency would stand in its way.

To get the ore out of the ground, the company needed a permit to pollute a pristine supply of underground drinking water in an area already parched by drought.

Further, EPA scientists feared that radioactive contaminants would flow from the mining site into water wells used by nearby homes. Uranium Energy said the pollution would remain contained, but resisted doing the advanced scientific testing and modeling the government asked for to prove it.

Podesta -- the sister-in-law of John Podesta, who co-chaired President Obama's transition team -- appealed directly to the EPA's second in command, Bob Perciasepe, pressing the agency's highest-level administrators to get directly involved and bring the agency's local staff in Texas back to the table to reconsider their position, according to emails obtained by ProPublica through the Freedom of Information Act.

==

KENNETH GREEN, Fraser Institute: I think that when history looks back, it won't give Lisa Jackson a particularly good record as EPA administrator, for, when she came in, she was overshadowed somewhat by Carol Browner, who was a czar at that point, who is actually the one who gets the credit for the fuel economy standards, I believe.

And she's maintained a very adversarial relationship with industry. The EPA's culture of anti-industry, anti-business mentality continues.

And so it was under Lisa Jackson's watch that we had somebody saying that we're going to crucify some companies to set examples -- an EPA regional administrator -- that we're going to crucify companies in order to set examples and terrorize them into doing what we want.

JEFFREY BROWN: Crucify and terror?

KENNETH GREEN: Crucify and terror....

MICHAEL BRUNE: The result of that -- well, the result of that is that thousands of lives are being saved every year. The quality of life for millions of Americans has been raised because our air is a little bit cleaner, our water is a lot cleaner, and now we have got a real shot at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That's a record to be proud of.

JEFFREY BROWN: Kenneth Green?

KENNETH GREEN: Well, these trends of environmental improvement have been set for 35 years or better. Our air is getting cleaner and our water is getting cleaner as much because our technology is getting better as because we keep ratcheting down air standards from clean to super-clean to ultra-clean to pure.

This is one of the problems EPA -- that also has come up over the last four years, is that EPA has played fast and loose with its benefit calculations, the claims it makes with regard to the benefit of these new rules.

JEFFREY BROWN: So, you're questioning whether they have actually accomplished what they say they have accomplished?

KENNETH GREEN: Whether the benefits of the regulation will be what they promised and whether the cost will be as low as they have estimated.

Outside analysts have looked at their methodology, and EPA seems to consistently overclaim benefits, health benefits especially, and underassess the cost to their regulations and the economic impacts that Americans will face in years to come.

JEFFREY BROWN: But what about this partisanship notion that Michael Brune brought up, that, in this political atmosphere, that's inevitably what's going to happen, and that's what she faced and what the administration faces?

KENNETH GREEN: I think that's a fair assessment.

But I would have to say she gave as good as she got. And when the administration came in, they set a certain tone. They said they were going to be the most transparent administration ever.

And then how did they do the vehicle fuel economy standards? In closed-door session, where no notes were allowed to be taken to record the series of events, usurping the traditional route of setting CAFE standards through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

So, if there's credit to be given for polarization and partisanship, both sides get their share.

JEFFREY BROWN: Is that fair, Michael Brune?

MICHAEL BRUNE: No. We're reaching a level of silliness here. EPA has had countless public hearings to talk about those vehicle standards. I testified at one.

And, Kenneth, you probably should have done the same.

But let's look at the results. As a result of this standard, in which more than a million comments were submitted, by the way, as a result of this standard, consumers will save money at the pump, we will reduce our dependence on oil by several million barrels of oil per day, and this one rule will do -- will cut greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent economy-wide when it's fully implemented.

That's a huge victory. That's a huge victory. And it was done through a lengthy process that EPA drove. So, this has been......

===

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration's chief environmental watchdog, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, is stepping down after a nearly four-year tenure marked by high-profile brawls over global warming pollution, the Keystone XL oil pipeline, new controls on coal-fired plants and several other hot-button issues that affect the nation's economy and people's health.

Jackson, the agency's first black administrator, constantly found herself caught between administration pledges to solve controversial environmental problems and steady resistance from Republicans and industrial groups who complained that the agency's rules destroyed jobs and made it harder for American companies to compete internationally.

The GOP chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Fred Upton, said last year that Jackson would need her own parking spot at the Capitol because he planned to bring her in so frequently for questioning. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney called for her firing, a stance that had little downside during the GOP primary.

Jackson, 50, a chemical engineer by training, did not point to any particular reason for her departure. Historically, Cabinet members looking to move on will leave at the beginning of a president's second term.

"I will leave the EPA confident the ship is sailing in the right direction, and ready in my own life for new challenges, time with my family and new opportunities to make a difference," she said in a statement. Jackson gave no exact date for her departure, but will leave after Obama's State of the Union address in late January.

In a separate statement, Obama said Jackson has been "an important part of my team." He thanked her for serving and praised her "unwavering commitment" to the public's health.

"Under her leadership, the EPA has taken sensible and important steps to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink, including implementing the first national standard for harmful mercury pollution, taking important action to combat climate change under the Clean Air Act and playing a key role in establishing historic fuel economy standards that will save the average American family thousands of dollars at the pump, while also slashing carbon pollution."

Environmental groups had high expectations for the Obama administration after eight years of President George W. Bush, a Texas oilman who rebuffed the agency's scientists and refused to take action on climate change. Jackson came into office promising a more active EPA.

But she soon learned that changes would not occur as quickly as she had hoped. Jackson watched as a Democratic-led effort to reduce global warming emissions passed the House in 2009 but was abandoned by the Senate as economic concerns became the priority. The concept behind the bill, referred to as cap-and-trade, would have set up a system in which power companies bought and sold pollution rights.

"That's a revolutionary message for our country," Jackson said at a Paris conference a few months after taking the job.

Jackson experienced another big setback last year when the administration scrubbed a clean-air regulation aimed at reducing health-threatening smog. Republican lawmakers had been hammering the president over the proposed rule, accusing his administration of making it harder for companies to create jobs.

She also vowed to better control toxic coal ash after a massive spill in Tennessee, but that regulation has yet to be finalized more than four years after the spill.

Jackson had some victories, too. During her tenure, the administration finalized a new rule doubling fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks. The requirements will be phased in over 13 years and eventually require all new vehicles to average 54.5 mpg, up from 28.6 mpg at the end of last year.

She shepherded another rule that forces power plants to control mercury and other toxic pollutants for the first time. Previously, the nation's coal- and oil-fired power plants had been allowed to run without addressing their full environmental and public health costs.

Jackson also helped persuade the administration to table the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would have brought carbon-heavy tar sands oil from Canada to refineries in Texas.

House Republicans dedicated much of their time this past election year trying to rein in the EPA. They passed a bill seeking to thwart regulation of the coal industry and quash the stricter fuel efficiency standards. In the end, though, the bill made no headway in the Senate. It served mostly as election-year fodder that appeared to have little impact on the presidential election.

===

WASHINGTON (AP) — A government watchdog is looking into Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson's use of alias email accounts to conduct official business.

The audit by the EPA inspector general will determine whether EPA officials, including Jackson, followed federal laws and regulations when using secondary email accounts the public didn't know about. The EPA has said such accounts are standard practice, but their use raised concerns that the accounts could be used to skirt record-keeping and transparency requirements.

Republicans on the House Science Committee, led by Chairman Ralph Hall of Texas, requested a review in November following reports that Jackson used a secondary account under the name "Richard Windsor" to conduct EPA business. In letters to Jackson and to the inspector general, who is independent of the EPA, Hall questioned whether EPA's practices violated the Obama administration's commitment to unprecedented transparency.

GOP scrutiny of the practice grew last week, when House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., wrote to the EPA requesting detailed information about its internal practices for electronic records and alias emails.

An EPA spokeswoman said Wednesday that the agency welcomes the audit and has nothing to hide....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/epa-email-investigation_n_2333288.html

===

WASHINGTON (AP) — In its first major regulation since the election, the Obama administration will impose a new air quality standard that reduces by 20 percent the maximum amount of soot released into the air from smokestacks, diesel trucks and other sources of pollution.

The Environmental Protection Agency is set to announce the new standard on Friday, meeting a court deadline in a lawsuit by 11 states and public health groups.

An official who was briefed on the rule said the new annual standard will be 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air, down from the current 15 micrograms per cubic meter. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the rule hasn't yet been signed.

The new soot standard has been highly anticipated by environmental and business groups, who have battled over whether it will protect public health or cause job losses.

Soot, or fine particulate matter, is made up of microscopic particles released from smokestacks, diesel trucks, wood-burning stoves and other sources and contributes to haze. Breathing in soot can cause lung and heart problems, contributing to heart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks. 12/12

==

bump

Four times as much money has been spent on ads promoting the fossil fuel industry during this presidential campaign than in defense of President Obama’s efforts to increase clean energy production or to discuss global warming and air pollution. Four times as much. Some $153 million — as of a few weeks ago.

An increasingly nervous Mitt Romney has turned to the imaginary “war on coal” to buttress his eroding position in Ohio. (A Times/Quinnipiac poll out today has Romney down 10 points in a state that is almost must-win.)

The “war on coal” argument, like the argument from fossil fuel companies, is that the president’s policies on energy development hurt the economy, that the effort to reduce pollution from fossil fuels costs jobs. The argument is much more commonly made during debate on the House floor and at campaign rallies than it is by economists — for good reason. It doesn’t hold up.

Research released yesterday by the (admittedly left-leaning) Economic Policy Institute argues that the economic impacts of the Obama administration’s (modest) efforts to reduce pollution uniformly produce much more economic benefit than cost. Specifically: for $26 billion in cost associated with pollution reduction, the country sees $144 billion in benefit — a return of $5.50 on every dollar spent.

Caveats:

It bears mentioning that costs and benefits are phased in over time, can jump around for individual rules from year to year, and a considerable portion of the impact of the rules will not occur until five years or more from now. Thus it is best to think of the figures as annual averages over time, but not representative of a particular year.

The benefits mostly come from savings on health costs: lives saved, emergency room visits avoided. In other words, they’re benefits that stem from internalizing the cost of pollution — making polluters pay for their pollution instead of you paying for it in a doctor’s bill.

Which is exactly why industry hates the regulations. They don’t see the cost benefit — unless they’re foolish enough to live near one of their own facilities. The industry doesn’t simply want Obama to lose; it wants to turn back the clock on systems of accountabiltiy — or at least to stop them in place. Spending four times as much on ads lets the fossil fuel industry present only their case: This costs us money. What isn’t heard is the rebuttal: Better your oil company pays than my kid’s lungs.

Source

Nearly four years in, what do cost-benefit data show for the major Obama EPA rules, and what do they imply for the economy?, Economic Policy Institute

http://grist.org/news/epa-rules-create-5-of-good-for-each-1-they-cost/

===

Richard Burr Introduces Bill To Abolish The EPA

Posted by Brad Johnson on Friday, May 06, 2011

Senate Republicans have introduced legislation to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency. The bill, introduced by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), would merge the EPA, which enforces environmental laws, with the Department of Energy, which manages nuclear energy and energy research, into one department.

In January, Newt Gingrich proposed abolishing the EPA, and several House Republicans have supported that goal. Burr’s statement announcing his bill to eliminate the EPA argues that “duplicative functions” can be eliminated:

U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) introduced a bill that would consolidate the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency into a single, new agency called the Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE). The bill would provide cost savings by combining duplicative functions while improving the administration of energy and environmental policies by ensuring a coordinated approach.

Burr’s bill has fifteen co-sponsors, all of them deniers of the threat of global warming pollution, a top EPA priority: Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), John Thune (R-S.D.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Dan Coats (R-Ind.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), David Vitter (R-La.), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), Mike Lee (R-Utah)

===

National Journal's Ronald Brownstein, one of the sharpest political observers out there, has an excellent column examining the unusual party discipline House Republicans have displayed in recent votes against EPA regulations. There has been an unceasing march of such efforts, and they are not only garnering near-unanimous support from Republicans in districts Obama carried in 2008, they are getting lots of votes from Democrats in Obama districts.

This is not typical. Historically, Republicans in blue suburban areas have tread lightly around air and water issues, which consistently poll well in their districts. Brownstein reviews the record:

In 1995, newly ascendant House Republicans under then-Speaker Newt Gingrich also targeted a series of environmental regulations. But Gingrich faced growing resistance rooted in the suburbs: The number of House Republicans voting no rose from two on a measure that February to require tougher cost-benefit analysis on regulations, to 34 on legislation in May to dilute the Clean Water Act, to 63 on a measure that failed in November to constrain EPA’s enforcement.

As Brownstein says, that's not happening today. This is his diagnosis:

Partly, the answer is that the overall pressure for party loyalty is even greater now than it was then. Green-oriented Republicans no longer have the leadership that venerable moderates such as now-retired Rep. Sherwood Boehlert of New York provided. And the fossil-fuel industry is amplifying its influence inside the caucus by placing almost all of its chips on Republicans: So far in the 2012 cycle, coal and oil and gas interests have directed about 90 percent of their formidable campaign contributions toward the GOP.

To make matters worse, Republicans are convinced Obama is going to lose -- 83 percent of them think so (as do 55 percent of all Americans). Even the ones in blue areas aren't afraid of him.

But as Brownstein says, polls show that those suburban voters still support air and water regulations, even in these grim economic times. Indeed, most Americans do. Insofar as the discussion remains at the abstract level of big government and regulations, Dems are in trouble. But if it can be made specific, about mercury in the water and smog in the air, it can help Dems highlight what to expect under Republican governance.

The elections of 2012 will be a crucial test of the Republican strategy of unified total warfare. If the House Republicans who voted for more air pollution are reelected in an anti-Obama backdraft, it will embolden them to come after EPA twice as hard next session. And if Republicans take the Senate, as appears likely, one regulatory rollback after another will reach the president's desk. And if Mitt Romney wins the presidency ...

http://www.grist.org/politics/2011-10-07-republican-anti-epa-jihad-explained

-----

Will new EPA regulations related to greenhouse gases, drinking water, mercury and air toxics derail the nation's still-sluggish economy, lead to million or more lost jobs in coming years and result in economic losses that exceed $75 billion? Resoundingly, no. History has consistently illustrated the opposite of these unsubstantiated claims. Eban Goodstein, director of the Bard Center for Environmental Policy, noted that "widespread predictions of massive job losses preceded EPA's move in the early 1990s to curb sulfur-dioxide emissions from power plants," which did not occur. Dan Reicher, executive director of the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy & Finance at Stanford University, expressed that "experience since the 1970s makes clear that well-conceived and executed carbon regulation will not only stimulate technological innovation but can be implemented cost-effectively."

There is simply no evidence in the history of the existence of the EPA that its purpose is to pass cost-prohibitive regulations and to kill jobs. To be sure, there are some policy choices that may place some jobs at risk and raise the expense of doing business for certain industry sectors. But, the overall benefits of improved long-term public health, reduced premature deaths and sustainability far outweigh the costs. The idea of placing a moratorium on regulations that result in the betterment of citizens around the country is simply not prudent, especially when it evolves from the governor of one of the nation's dirtiest states.

Data has shown that the EPA has actually been instrumental in generating jobs, while tripling its 1970 GDP level. The PEW Charitable Trust recently estimated that "as many as 85,000 jobs per year have been created as a result of the expanding alternative clean energy markets." A study conducted by the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute has indicated that two new air quality rules issues will create nearly 1.5 million jobs, or nearly 300,000 jobs a year on average over the next five years. These new employment opportunities, which will include engineers, project managers, electricians, boilermakers, pipefitters, millwrights and iron workers, will arise from the need to retrofit older plants, capital improvements and the installation of pollution control devices.

Governor Perry has indeed favored green initiatives in Texas, but he has also been a huge advocate of his state's huge petrochemical sector. With a cleaner environment, better health and more jobs as a result of EPA's safeguards, one has to wonder whether Perry's proposal is really focused on allowing polluters to emit and to discharge to the environment as they please while aiming to make record profits.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-jerrod/rick-perry-epa_b_929360.html

-----

misfiled under dick armey?

Lost in the kerfuffle over whether or not new Republican frontrunner Herman Cain's tax plan actually proves that he is the anti-Christ (as hinted by Michele Bachmann) was some much more serious business.

Members of the House of Representatives have been casting a string of votes of staggering recklessness and cupidity. The House voted to delay EPA's authority to regulate toxic air pollutants from cement kilns, but it also voted, in a virtual partisan lockstep, to defeat a series of amendments designed to retain at least minimal protection for the public health. The House voted 246-166 to prevent the EPA from limiting emissions from cement kilns even if the emissions caused learning disabilities or harmed brain development. It voted 253-166 to prevent the EPA from acting even if it was essential to improve children's health. It rejected several amendments that merely required Congress to admit that mercury and other cement-kiln emissions cause premature deaths, heart attacks, asthma, and brain damage. The House even voted, 254-169, to reject an amendment by Representative Henry Waxman that conceded that the rules, if allowed to go into effect, would reduce the amount of mercury deposited on land and water.

Then the House turned its machete to EPA standards designed to protect the public from toxic emissions from industrial boilers. Once again, when the Democrats proposed that regulations go into effect if they were essential to protecting health, Republicans voted them down. Even if these regulations were needed to prevent brain damage, House Republicans said, they should be blocked. Even if the nation's ten most polluted cities -- no way.

These are by far the worst environmental votes cast in any Congress in American history. Yet they are drawing almost no attention. And it's not because the public wants to be poisoned.

These votes were all cast at the insistence of the House Republican leadership, with dozens of House Republicans from districts where EPA protections are very popular (including districts carried by Barack Obama in 2008) going along with the Koch Brothers and polluting industries.

The Obama administration made it clear that it would veto this legislation if it ever arrived on the president's desk. New polling by CERES shows that the public strongly supports the EPA in its efforts to protect the public health. In fact, the CERES poll showed that 62 percent of Republican voters want Congress to let the EPA do its job. More striking, over the past year, as congressional Republicans and Fox News have mounted the most intense assault ever on the fundamental principle that the federal government should protect the health of all Americans, public support for EPA scientists as the right people to make decisions about pollution standards has increased.

The more Americans realize that the alternative to letting the EPA protect their health is to count on members of Congress or (even worse) polluting industries, the more they like the EPA. And voters are not alone. Over three-quarters of small business owners, the people in whose name the Republican leadership likes to attack public health protection, favor EPA regulations and think that they are good for business and jobs. In fact, polling shows that the public thinks that even the Obama administration is coddling polluters and exposing Americans to unacceptable health risks by slowing down the EPA's proposed new health standards for smog.

It's hard to avoid the impression that the media have simply abandoned their role as public watchdogs, and have settled down to just do "color commentary" like sports announcers. But at least on Monday Night Football, they give you the score!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/do-they-actually-cast-the_b_1009969.html

-------

http://motherjones.com/print/125832

First They Came for the Lightbulbs...

The conspiracy theory behind Michele Bachmann's war on energy efficiency.

By Tim Murphy | Thu Aug. 4, 2011 3:00 AM PDT

Few issues get Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) going quite like lightbulbs. At campaign stops across the country, she has repeatedly denounced a 2007 law that required manufacturers to develop energy-efficient lightbulb varieties. Bachmann sees the law as an affront to American values [1]. "I think Thomas Edison did a pretty patriotic thing for this country by inventing the lightbulb," she told a New Hampshire audience in March. "And I think darn well, you New Hampshirites, if you want to buy Thomas Edison's wonderful invention, you should be able to!"

In reality, no one's stopping New Hampshirites [2] (or anyone else, for that matter) from buying any kind of lightbulb they pleaseâeven the incandescent variety that Bachmann warns will be outlawed unless we pass the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act [3] that she supported. (BULB would repeal the energy-efficiency rules.) But Bachmann's crusade is about much more than energy-conserving bulbs: The Minnesota congresswoman is part of a movement that considers "sustainability" an existential threat to the United States, one with far-reaching consequences for education, transportation, and family values. If Bachmann is right, lightbulbs will soon be the least of our worries.

Bachmann's concerns may have been best articulated in an interview she gave to the American Family Association's OneNewsNow in 2008. As Republicans in Washington revolted over the rising costs of gas, the then-freshman congresswoman outlined the stakes:

"This is their agendaâI know it's hard to believe, it's hard to fathom, but this is 'Mission Accomplished' for them," she said [4] of congressional Democrats. "They want Americans to take transit and move to the inner cities. They want Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, [and] take light rail to their government jobs. That's their vision for America."

Although she didn't say it right then, Bachmann likely had something specific in mind: Agenda 21 [5], a two-decade-old United Nations agreement that has taken on a life of its own on the far-right. The agreement, forged in 1992, nominally committed signatories to a set of shared values designed to mitigate the environmental impact of human development. Member countries agreed to a range of sustainability goals, from preserving the ozone layer to ensuring that forests are managed so they'll be around for future generations. (The United States is a signatory, but the treaty has not been ratified by the Senate.)

But to some conservatives, Agenda 21 became something far more nefarious [5]âa gateway to a global government built on a radical doctrine of secular environmentalism.

8/11

Of course, the hard-core Republican Party of today doesn't resemble Roosevelt's or the elder Bush's. Among the 40 riders the knee-jerk antienvironmentalists of the House GOP produced last week:

â¢ A rider that would prevent the EPA from issuing any regulations on greenhouse-gas emissions over the next year â despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled the agency has the responsibility to regulate those emissions as a public-health threat under the Clean Air Act.

â¢ A rider that would stop the EPA from carrying out tough new automobile-fuel-efficiency standards that were announced last week â standards that have the support of all the major automakers.

â¢ A rider that would prevent the EPA from labeling the toxic ash left over from coal combustion as hazardous waste â something that would no doubt alarm the people of Kingston, Tenn., buried by a coal-ash spill in 2008.

And that's exactly the problem. According to Markey and Waxman's rundown of 110 antienvironment votes made by the House so far this year, on average, 97% of Republican members voted for the antigreen positions, while 84% of Democrats supported the progreen position. As long as that massive chasm exists â and as long as Republicans view anything green as an ideological threat â we have no chance of crafting meaningful political action on long-term challenges like climate change or energy.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2086421,00.html#ixzz1Tz8VILTg

Senate Republicans have introduced legislation to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, established 40 years ago by President Richard Nixon to give Americans clean air and water. The bill, introduced by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), would merge the EPA, which enforces environmental laws, with the Department of Energy, which manages nuclear energy and energy research, into one department.

In January, Newt Gingrich proposed abolishing the EPA, and several House Republicans have supported that goal, while making numerous attempts to hamstring limits on industrial polluters. Burr's statement announcing his bill to eliminate the EPA argues that "duplicative functions" can be eliminated, even though the two departments are completely different:

Burr introduced a bill that would consolidate the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency into a single, new agency called the Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE). The bill would provide cost savings by combining duplicative functions while improving the administration of energy and environmental policies by ensuring a coordinated approach.

Burr's bill has 15 cosponsors, all of them global warming deniers: Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), John Thune (R-S.D.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Dan Coats (R-Ind.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), John Boozman (R-Ariz.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), David Vitter (R-La.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mike Lee (R-Utah).

http://www.grist.org/politics/2011-05-06-richard-burr-introduces-bill-to-abolish-the-epa

rfk The head of the air division of the EPA was Marianne Horinko, whose former job had been advising corporate polluters on how to evade Superfund. The second in command of EPA was a Monsanto lobbyist. If you look at virtually all of the sub-secretariats and agency heads in the Departments of Agriculture, Energy and Interior and EPA, the same pattern holds. Polluters have been put in charge of the agencies that are supposed to protect Americans from pollution.

Amendment that says climate change is occurring fails in House

By Ben Geman - 04/06/11 07:13 PM ET

The House rejected a Democratic amendment Wednesday that would have put the chamber on record backing the widely held scientific view that global warming is occurring and humans are a major cause.

Lawmakers voted 184-240 against Rep. Henry Waxmanâs (D-Calif.) amendment to a GOP-led bill that would strip the Environmental Protection Agencyâs power to regulate greenhouse gases.

The amendment from Waxman â the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee â reflects Democratic efforts to cast the bill as an outrageous trampling of scientific consensus.

But senior Republicans â and some Democrats â seeking to block the rules say the bill is aimed at what they allege will be the negative economic effects of climate rules.

Waxmanâs failed amendment stated:

âCongress accepts the scientific findings of the Environmental Protection Agency that climate changes is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.â It was co-sponsored by Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

The underlying bill, sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), is expected to pass Thursday.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/154445-house-votes-down-climate-science-amendment

---

This comes on the heels of defunding some EPA programs and voting to take control of GHG regulations away from the EPA.

House votes to block EPAâs global warming power

(AP)

The Republican-controlled House has voted to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases that scientists say cause global warming.

The 249-177 vote added the regulation ban to a sweeping spending bill that would fund the government through Sept. 30. The restriction is opposed by the Obama administration, which is using its regulatory powers to curb greenhouse gases after global warming legislation collapsed last year. The administration also says the ban would cost thousands of construction jobs.

full story here

-----

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/republican-epa-ambush  3/11 House GOP attack

See food inc and Fut of food on revolving door  Monsanto

===

duplicate 8/15/13

What do Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and George W. Bush have in common?

Yes, OK, obviously they were all Republican presidents. But as of Friday, there is something else that ties them all together.

EPA administrators who worked for all of those presidents came out in support of stronger actions on climate change, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html?smid=tw-share&r=1&" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(157, 157, 157); text-decoration: none; max-width: 100%;">co-signing a powerful op-ed in The New York Times</a> supporting Barack Obama’s climate actions and arguing that “the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change.”

Here are some highlights from the op-ed, which was written by William D. Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas, William K. Reilly, and Christine Todd Whitman:

The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes “locked in.”

</blockquote>

The op-ed also states that there “is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts” of global warming. But, then, nobody should need a bunch of former EPA chiefs to tell them that.

</div></section>

<h3 style="border: 0px; margin: 6px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: gray;">Source</h3>

</div>

<li style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; list-style-image: none; list-style-type: none;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html?smid=tw-share&r=2&" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(157, 157, 157); text-decoration: none;">A Republican Case for Climate Action</a>, The New York Times</li>

</ul>

</div>

==

NEPA brought ppl into checks and bal 38; post watergate reforms/post earth day revived trad FF dominance of legis; FOIA ups democ/ppl power since we have access to info/sci rfk2

==

<a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/epas-abandoned-wyoming-fracking-study-one-retreat-of-many" target="_hplink" style=" list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; color: rgb(57, 152, 0); outline: 0px; cursor: pointer;">ProPublica's Abrahm Lustgarten reports:</a>

When the Environmental Protection Agency abruptly retreated on its multimillion-dollar investigation into water contamination in a central Wyoming natural gas field last month, it shocked environmentalists and energy industry supporters alike.

In 2011, the agency had <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/epa-finds-fracking-compound-in-wyoming-aquifer" target="_hplink" style=" list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; color: rgb(57, 152, 0); outline: 0px; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer;">issued a blockbuster draft report</a> saying that the controversial practice of fracking was to blame for the pollution of an aquifer deep below the town of Pavillion, Wy. – the first time such a claim had been based on a scientific analysis.

The study drew heated criticism over its methodology and awaited a peer review that promised to settle the dispute. <a href="http://governor.wy.gov/media/pressReleases/Pages/WyomingtoLeadFurtherInvestigationofWaterQualityConcernsOutsideofPavillionwithSupportofEPA.aspx" target="_hplink" style=" list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; color: rgb(57, 152, 0); outline: 0px; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer;">Now the EPA will instead hand the study</a> over to the state of Wyoming, whose research will be funded by EnCana, the very drilling company whose wells may have caused the contamination.

===

----

rfk2: gov sued on atrazine, then hired syngenta to study

--

Dr. Warren Porter, a professor of zoology and environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin, likens the EPA’s process for registering chemicals to “bait and switch” sales tactics. Pesticide makers win approval for specific active ingredients, and then mix those chemicals with a number of other ingredients. The result is a far different formulation that has bypassed government safety reviews and is then sold to the public.

<div id="attachment_4162" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 310px;">Atrazine has been found to damage sexual development in frogs. Here two male frogs copulate, and one will lay eggs. / Photo courtesy of Dr. Tyrone Hayes</div>

Porter and other scientists have found that once the EPA registers a specific chemical for use, the manufacturer then combines it with a number of other solvents, surfactants and inert ingredients that were never part of the registration process. The goal in formulating pesticides, often, is to increase toxicity and facilitate penetration of the toxin through the cell wall where it then kills mitochondria and damages DNA.

“The EPA is registering one thing and something very different is being sold to the public,” Porter said....<a href="http://100r.org/2012/02/epa-oversight-weighing-the-parts-ignoring-the-whole/">http://100r.org/2012/02/epa-oversight-weighing-the-parts-ignoring-the-whole/</a>

==

kicking up a fuss on XL

---

Twelve members of Congress want to make a bad situation even worse, sponsoring the industry-backed General Duty Clarification Act; its banal title hiding that, <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/how-chemical-lobby%E2%80%99s-friends-congress-fought-keep-regulators-its-back">as reported by Tim Murphy</a> at Mother Jones magazine, “The bill is designed to sap the Environmental Protection Agency of its powers to regulate safety and security at major chemical sites, as prescribed by the Clean Air Act.”

“‘We call that the Koch brothers bill,’ Greenpeace legislative director Rick Hind says, because the bill’s sponsor, GOP Rep. Mike Pompeo, represents the conservative megadonors’ home city of Wichita, Kansas. (The sponsor of the sister legislation in the senate, GOP Sen. Pat Roberts, represents the Kochs’ home state of Kansas.) The brothers have huge investments in fertilizer production, and Hind thinks they’ll ultimately get what they want, whether or not the bill becomes law.”

Congress quietly acquiesces as the regulations meant for our safety are whittled away. The progressive website <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/20/1601231/meat-industry-horsemeat/">ThinkProgress</a> notes that even though food related infections — which kill 3,000 and sicken 48 million Americans each year — rose last year, congressional and White House budget cuts may mean up to 600 fewer food inspectors at meat and poultry plants, leaving it up to the industry to police itself. That rot you’re smelling isn’t just some bad hamburger....

http://billmoyers.com/2013/04/26/do-nothing-congress-gives-inertia-a-bad-name/

===

stalls air rules : <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/epa-may-delay_n_2884697.html?view=print&comm_ref=false">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/epa-may-delay_n_2884697.html?view=print&comm_ref=false</a>

==

<a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec12/epa_12-27.html">http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec12/epa_12-27.html</a>

...

The plan appeared to be dead on arrival until late 2011, when Uranium Energy hired Heather Podesta, a lobbyist and prolific Democratic fundraiser whose pull with the Obama administration prompted The Washington Post to name her the Capitol's latest "<a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-08-24/news/36781271_1_heather-podesta-lobbyists-healthsouth" target="_hplink">It girl</a>."

Podesta -- the sister-in-law of John Podesta, who co-chaired President Obama's transition team -- <a href="http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/613115-emails-hq-foi-2013-000731-2nd-release.html" target="_hplink">appealed directly</a> to the EPA's second in command, Bob Perciasepe, pressing the agency's highest-level administrators to get directly involved and bring the agency's local staff in Texas back to the table to reconsider their position, according to emails obtained by ProPublica through the Freedom of Information Act.