Do We Still Need the EPA?

Just a few decades ago, the U.S. was a much different place than it is today. Polluted rivers caught fire, thick clouds of smog smothered cities, and wildlife died from exposure to chemicals.

These growing problems sparked America’s environmental movement in the 1960s. People began pushing for better management and safeguarding of the nation’s natural resources (see Going Green). “It became increasingly obvious to citizens around the country that the environment was being polluted and that it was becoming dangerous to their health,” says David Lodge, an environmental scientist at Cornell University in New York. “Something needed to be done.”

That something was the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by President Richard Nixon in 1970. The agency is responsible for enforcing environmental regulations passed by Congress.

Recently, though, the EPA has come under scrutiny by some politicians—including President Donald Trump. They believe the laws enforced by the EPA interfere with economic growth. The president and others have expressed their desire to scale back the agency’s powers. Environmentalists argue that air, water, wildlife, and people’s health would suffer if the powers of the EPA to fight pollution and polluters were weakened. So who’s right?

The U.S. was a very different place just a few decades ago. Polluted rivers caught fire and thick clouds of smog covered cities. Wild animals died from exposure to chemicals.

These growing problems sparked America’s environmental movement in the 1960s. People wanted the nation’s natural resources to be managed and protected better (see Going Green). “It became increasingly obvious to citizens around the country that the environment was being polluted and that it was becoming dangerous to their health,” says David Lodge. He’s an environmental scientist at Cornell University in New York. “Something needed to be done.”

And something was done. President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970. The EPA’s job is to enforce the environmental laws passed by Congress.

But lately, some politicians have questioned the need for the EPA. President Donald Trump is one of them. They believe the laws enforced by the EPA hurt economic growth. President Trump and others have said they want to weaken the agency’s powers. Environmentalists argue that pollution would get out of control if the EPA were weakened. Air, water, wildlife, and people’s health would suffer. So who’s right?

The creation of the EPA came about after several high-profile environmental disasters in the 1960s. One of the most infamous incidents occurred in 1969, when the polluted Cuyahoga River burst into flames.

The river, which runs through Cleveland, Ohio, had caught fire several times over the previous few decades. Steel mills and factories had been dumping flammable, oily waste into the river. Sewage was also being pumped directly into the water. Similar things were happening in waterways across the country.

The Cuyahoga River, which empties into Lake Erie, polluted the lake too. “The lake smelled awful. It was different shades of brown, orange, yellow, and green, and it was covered in oily scum,” says Jeff Reutter. He’s an environmental scientist and former director of Ohio State University’s Lake Erie laboratory. Not much could survive in the lake’s polluted waters. “Lake Erie became the poster child for the pollution problem in this country,” Reutter says.

The EPA was formed after several well-known environmental disasters in the 1960s. One of the most shocking happened in 1969. The polluted Cuyahoga River burst into flames.

The river runs through Cleveland, Ohio. Its water had already caught fire several times over a few decades. Steel mills and factories had been dumping flammable, oily waste into the river. Sewage was also being pumped directly into the water. Things like this were happening in waterways across the country.

The toxic Cuyahoga River emptied into Lake Erie. “The lake smelled awful. It was different shades of brown, orange, yellow, and green, and it was covered in oily scum,” says Jeff Reutter. He’s an environmental scientist and former director of Ohio State University’s Lake Erie laboratory. Not much could live in the lake’s polluted waters. “Lake Erie became the poster child for the pollution problem in this country,” Reutter says.

It wasn’t until the formation of the EPA that something was done to stem the tide of pollution. In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act. The law gave the EPA the power to enforce water-quality standards throughout the nation. If a business failed to meet pollution targets to reduce chemicals in waterways, it had to pay fines until it was up to code.

The safety standards helped places like Lake Erie. Fisheries have rebounded. Tourism in the region is booming—bringing in more than $14 billion each year and more than 120,000 jobs to the region. “Some people think you can only have one or the other: a healthy environment or a healthy economy,” Reutter says. “You can have both—Lake Erie is proof.”

Water quality wasn’t the only thing to improve under the EPA’s watch. The agency also took charge of implementing the Clean Air Act, which was created in 1963 to curb worsening air pollution in many cities and industrial areas. Under the act’s guidelines, the EPA set limits for airborne toxins emitted by factories, cars, and power plants (see How Laws Help). Scientific studies show that the agency’s clean-air efforts have prevented millions of cases of cancer, heart disease, and respiratory illnesses like asthma.

When the EPA was formed, something was finally done to control pollution. In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act. The law gave the EPA the power to enforce water-quality standards across the nation. Pollution targets were set to lower the amount of chemicals in waterways. If a business failed to meet the targets, it had to pay fines until it was up to code.

The safety standards worked for places like Lake Erie. Fisheries have returned, and tourism is booming. Tourism brings in more than $14 billion each year and more than 120,000 jobs to the area. “Some people think you can only have one or the other: a healthy environment or a healthy economy,” Reutter says. “You can have both—Lake Erie is proof.”

Water quality improved under the EPA. The agency also took charge of enforcing the Clean Air Act. Air pollution was growing worse, and this act was created in 1963 to control it. Under its guidelines, the EPA set limits for airborne toxins released by factories, cars, and power plants (see How Laws Help). The agency’s clean-air efforts have gotten results. Studies show they’ve prevented millions of cases of cancer, heart disease, and respiratory illnesses like asthma.

So if the EPA has helped so much, why limit its power? Some politicians say the agency is too large and expensive to run. They argue that reducing its size and budget would cut wasteful government spending. President Trump and others believe that many of the environmental regulations enforced by the EPA are also too strict, making industry less profitable and causing companies to cut jobs.

Since he took office, President Trump has proposed cutting the EPA’s budget by 31 percent and staff by 25 percent. He’s signed executive orders to lessen the agency’s regulatory powers. He also appointed Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. Before becoming the EPA chief, Pruitt filed about a dozen lawsuits against some of the agency’s actions as the attorney general in Oklahoma. Under Pruitt, the EPA has been slower to enforce regulations. There have been one-third fewer lawsuits against polluters than during President Barack Obama’s administration and one-quarter fewer than under President George W. Bush during the same period of time.

So if the EPA has helped so much, why limit its power? Some politicians believe the agency is too large and expensive to run. They say that reducing its size and budget will cut wasteful government spending. President Trump and some other politicians also believe that many of the regulations enforced by the EPA are too strict. They say some industries make less money as a result. This causes them to cut jobs.

President Trump has acted on these ideas since he took office. He’s proposed cutting the EPA’s budget by 31 percent and staff by 25 percent. He’s signed executive orders to reduce some of the agency’s powers to regulate. He also named Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. Pruitt was the attorney general in Oklahoma. In that role, he filed more than a dozen lawsuits to stop some of the agency’s actions. Under Pruitt, the agency has been slower to enforce current regulations. The number of lawsuits against polluters has dropped. There have been one-third fewer lawsuits than under President Barack Obama and one-quarter less than under President George W. Bush.

While new environmental regulations might hurt select businesses in the short term, they improve the overall economy in the long run, says Steven Cohen. He’s a political scientist who studies issues involving the environment and the economy at Columbia University’s Earth Institute in New York City. New standards hardly ever go into effect right away in order to give companies time to change their technology and procedures. “Even if you lose one factory because of new requirements, many more will be built because regulations very often force industry to innovate and modernize,” says Cohen. “Economists have found that regulation often forces technological innovation, which then leads to economic growth.”

Cohen and other experts agree that the EPA also pays for itself by improving Americans’ health. This saves billions of dollars in health-care costs and reduces lost hours of productivity due to illness. “For every dollar we spend on regulating air pollution, we get about $15 back in benefits,” says Cohen.

Scientists fear that curtailing the EPA’s role will lead to the return of widespread pollution in the U.S. “If you want to see what it’s like without the EPA, go to places like Beijing, China, or New Delhi, India,” where they are just starting to impose environmental regulations, David Lodge of Cornell University says. “That’s what our country was on its way to becoming before we did something to change its direction.”

New environmental regulations hurt some businesses in the short term. But they help the overall economy in the long run, says Steven Cohen. He’s a political scientist who studies problems involving the environment and the economy at Columbia University’s Earth Institute in New York City. New standards hardly ever go into effect right away. That gives companies time to change their technology and methods. “Even if you lose one factory because of new requirements, many more will be built because regulations very often force industry to innovate and modernize,” says Cohen. “Economists have found that regulation often forces technological innovation, which then leads to economic growth.”

He and other experts agree that the EPA also pays for itself. That’s because it improves Americans’ health. This saves billions of dollars in healthcare costs. It also reduces lost work hours due to illness. “For every dollar we spend on regulating air pollution, we get about $15 back in benefits,” says Cohen.

Scientists fear what will happen if the EPA isn’t allowed to do its job. Pollution could get worse again and cause problems for Americans. “If you want to see what it’s like not to have the EPA, go to places like China or India,” Lodge says. Those countries are just starting to enforce environmental regulations. “That’s what our country was on its way to becoming before we did something to change its direction.”