EPA: From environmental champion to bureaucratic goliath

Photo Credit: Getty

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established as a symbol of hope for a cleaner, healthier America. Today, however, it faces critical scrutiny due to three major challenges: an excessive bureaucracy, a diminished relative importance, and a potential shift away from its original focus on urgent environmental issues

This shift prompts an examination of how an agency created to address urgent environmental concerns has evolved into a complex bureaucracy, seemingly disconnected from its mission.

In its early years, the EPA made significant progress. The Clean Air Act of 1970, signed by President Nixon, led to a remarkable 70 percent reduction in emission of six major pollutants during the following decades.

The creation of the EPA was influenced by several factors. Historically we can remember Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," raising awareness about pesticides, and the Cuyahoga River fire, highlighting the need for environmental action. However, the narrative around these events is debated; the 1969 fire was not unique and caused minimal damage, while some claims in "Silent Spring" were subsequently debunked. Ultimately, the establishment of the EPA was based more on the perception of a crisis rather than the reality.

Another outline that brought sudden concern about nature involved color television. "The visible effect of a yellow outfall flowing into the blue river or brown smog against a bright blue sky was far more impressive than those same images in black and white," these were comments of the first director of EPA, William D. Ruckelshaus in 1990.

The EPA has seen substantial growth in resources, but this has not yielded proportional environmental improvements or policy innovations. Critics have long argued that the agency has an unwieldy bureaucracy, a problem evident since the 1990s. A glance at the EPA's organizational chart reveals a complex, multi-layered structure that underscores this bureaucratic expansion. The agency now comprises more than 35 offices, including the 10 regional offices, with multiple divisions and sub-departments, each with its own administrative overhead.

The EPA's budget has grown from $1 billion in 1970 to $10.1 billion in 2023, with a proposed budget of $9.1 billion for 2024. This growth outpaces inflation by about 20%, while the agency's workforce has expanded from 5,800 to 15,115 employees. These numbers suggest the EPA should be visible in every aspect of American life, yet it rarely enters public conversation.

The agency's organizational complexity raises questions about its ability to respond resourcefully to emerging environmental challenges and efficiently allocate resources to affecting environmental programs.

Modern presidencies, regardless of political affiliation, have not prioritized the EPA to the same extent as the Nixon administration did. This raises questions about whether the EPA has lost its edge, whether political will to tackle environmental issues head-on has diminished, or if the agency's original core goals have shifted.

The EPA's prominence in presidential economic reports has fluctuated. In the 2010 Economic Report of the President, the EPA was mentioned only twice. The 2018 report mentioned it 14 times, while the 2014 report only referenced it twice. This inconsistent focus from the White House contradicts the expectation that Democratic administrations would emphasize environmental issues more than Republican ones.

Presidential agendas and public discourse now rarely prioritize the agency, despite its growing budget and workforce. This diminished prominence suggests a shift in the perceived importance of the EPA's role in national policy.

The EPA's methodologies and measurement standards have faced significant criticism over the years, highlighting potential inefficiencies and inconsistencies. A major issue involves the agency's tendency to change chemical measurement standards based primarily on opinion, often without substantial empirical evidence.

Climate change has become a central focus for the EPA, suggesting that the agency may be expanding beyond its responsibilities and possibly diverging from its original values. The EPA's struggle to adapt to new challenges is exemplified by its approach to carbon emissions from power plants, facing legal setbacks such as the Supreme Court's rejection of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan.

The EPA has been reluctant to use zero as a baseline measurement for pollutants, which can lead to potential overestimation of pollutant levels and unnecessary regulations. Additionally, the EPA has rejected consistent policy approaches in favor of an ad hoc approach that lacks transparency, making it difficult for stakeholders to understand and predict the agency's decision-making process.

Defenders of the EPA point out that environmental challenges have grown more complex, requiring more resources and a broader approach. They argue that the agency's expanded budget is necessary to tackle issues like climate change, emerging contaminants, and environmental justice concerns.

The EPA's journey from its Nixon-era inception to its current state shows a need for reevaluation. The agency's expanding budget, coupled with its diminished prominence in national policy discussions, calls for a serious examination of its efficiency and effectiveness.

The EPA must adapt to changing environmental realities and maintain bipartisan support for its mission. As environmental issues continue to shape our world, a reinvigorated and efficient EPA remains as necessary now as it was in Nixon's time.