DC Bureau - Investigative Journalism, Environmental News, and National Security Stories That Matter

Bill Johnson. Photo: kentuckybill.com

Mr. Johnson doesn’t see the need for the EPA, and he has a simple plan to get rid of it: Just shut it down and stop funding it. “We need to get rid of existing legislation and stop funding the Environmental Protection Agency. In other words, get rid of it – get rid of the associated federal regulations and return those responsibilities to the states.” Mr. Johnson is a firm believer that the federal government has no place in the environmental regulations business and bases his argument on the notion that individual states are more informed about their own environment than an artificial arbiter in Washington. Not only that, but Mr. Johnson sees the mere existence of the agency as an affront to the rights of states.

How would environmental regulation work in Mr. Johnson’s world? That’s for the states to decide. When asked if there was a need for a national set of regulations, Mr. Johnson said, “I don’t. There might be a very minimal need, but I don’t see a $ 10.5 billion agency with 17,000 full-time equivalent [employees].” Mr. Johnson also stated that minimal regulations could be handled somewhere else in the federal government if any regulations were needed at all.

Mr. Johnson is quick to note that he is not anti-environment, but it is his firm belief that the states should be the final authority on environmental policy. His ideas on where the responsibilities for environmental regulation lie are prefaced by the notion that “going forward the states need to be held accountable. If they have certain industries in their state that pollute their state, they have to be responsible for cleaning it up.” This idea, Mr. Johnson says, will allow citizens to keep their elected officials more accountable for protecting the environment they live in. His system relies on what he believes will be a more effective response brought about by elected officials who are inherently closer to the people affected by environmental issues, as opposed to a system where faceless Washington bureaucrats dictate regulations. Let’s look at an example.

The EPA is currently looking into the practice of mountaintop mining, a practice that Mr. Johnson vehemently supports. When the subject was broached, Mr. Johnson was quick to say, “It’s not their [EPA] decision. It shouldn’t be their decision. Let the states decide.” He noted that if the state was concerned, they could do their own study and that the money we give the EPA to perform these studies should go to the states. Doing so, he said would hold elected officials accountable for spending the money wisely. When asked if there was a conflict of interest in having elected officials perform these studies, he asked, “Why is the federal government anymore trust worthy than state government?“ And when asked if there was a need for a third party arbiter, he noted that “the third party arbiter is the voter, vote’em out of office. I don’t understand why the federal government is any more credible in their studies or being an arbiter than the state legislature, who is actually more accountable to the people.” The real question in Mr. Johnson’s mind was: “How do you fire the EPA? How do you fire some people in Washington? They’re so far away.” Mr. Johnson ended his comments by stating, “Actually, it does more to harm the environment than help.”

And when asked about the possibility of interstate pollution, Mr. Johnson argues that it then becomes an issue for the courts. Mr. Johnson said that, in his opinion, it would be unconstitutional for one state to harm another and that the courts would have to take up the question of interstate pollution as a constitutional one. Notably, he said, “There would need to be some form of judicial ruling on whether or not there is a need to have some type of intervention. And if that results in some form of legislation, then so be it. But I still wouldn’t say there has to be a 10.5 billion agency.”  All of this, in Mr. Johnson’s view, would lead to a much better quality of life for Americans and that this quality would lead to less government, more accountability and more prosperity.

But is this realistic? There are a few historical trends that may help us flesh it out.

When exploring Mr. Johnson’s version of environmental protection, we have to pay extra attention two a key statements: first, that the government “has no business” in environmental regulation and second, that there should be no federal regulations at all or as close to this premise as possible. How would this bode for the regulations imposed to ban DDT usage or the free market solution, implemented by the EPA, to end CFC usage? How would banning of these two substances be managed in a world where there is no national standard? What about the air pollution episode of 1966? This episode resulted in an estimated 24 excessive deaths during the week of Thanksgiving. It not only predates the EPA, but also serves as a stark example of the fallacy of waiting for politics and industry to decide the appropriate regulations.

But that’s where his argument falls apart. He seeks to place something that requires intense scientific study in the hands of politicians for the sake of abject oversight. The EPA has regional divisions, collaborates with the states on recommendations, and accepts feedback and data that helps shape the regulatory process. In fact, the EPA was set up by the Nixon administration to be more receptive to local issues. Mr. Johnson asserts that “all politics is local,” and that environmental regulation should be a local issue to make it more accountable. Accountable to whom? Why do we need to hold an agency primarily composed of scientist more accountable? Is it because we disagree with their decisions? Science is certainly not democratic. To put the responsibility of formulating standards that effect individual health and the quality of our environment in the hands of political leaders would be tantamount to voting on the existence of gravity. Killing the EPA and letting the states work these problems out wouldn’t make them go away, wouldn’t address pollution that flows from state to state, wouldn’t address a trend where states lower their standards to compete for business, and would put the cost of doing the science on the states – that’s if they want to do the science at all.

And why would they do the science, especially now. It would be costly and mostly likely couldn’t be run in perpetuity. Not only that, but what if the elected officials don’t like the science they’re seeing. Mr. Johnson places the onus on elected officials. But how is that at all advantageous to them or to the endeavor of getting decent environmental regulations? Why would an elected official write real regulations when they’re getting pressure from industries to keep them lose? Why write regulations that could potentially cost people jobs, cost you votes, and send work to surrounding states with much lower standards? It doesn’t make any sense that an elected official would take the process seriously.

For all these reasons, paying one-thirtieth of a percent of the U.S. budget for the EPA sounds like a good deal.