Congresswoman Renee Ellmers (R – NC) wants to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the  federal agency that sets and enforces standards for safe water and air.  She should justify her goal.  We need congressional representatives who think carefully and speak wisely about such important matters.  Her statement seems reckless, and if she can’t justify it then she does not belong in our Congress. 

At an October 9, 2014 meeting of the Randolph County TEA Party, Ellmers said,   “I would eliminate the EPA .  There are people now who can’t afford to put their lights on because of the cost.  In the future, the EPA will over-regulate and get out of control with regulations and costs.”  My own research indicates that the EPA has been consistently effective and that it does its work at a reasonable cost.  Here is some of what I found.

The EPA wrote and enforced  rules to reduce acid rain from TVA and Midwestern power plants that was killing forests in the North Carolina mountains.  It sets national automobile fuel economy and emission standards.  They have consistently been tougher than carmakers want but they have been achievable.  As a result of the EPA’s work, we are less dependent on foreign oil because cars are more efficient; and the same rules helped clean up our air.  Contrary to Representative Ellmers’ statement, EPA rules have made travel and power generation less costly because we are using less fuel for each kilowatt-hour and each mile traveled than we would be using without the agency.  And it is the EPA that creates standards defining hazardous waste which will determine whether Duke Energy can dispose of toxic coal ash in the new Randolph County landfill.

The EPA required and supervised the cleanups after environmental disasters such as Love Canal, Exxon Valdez, and the BP Oil Spill.  Perhaps more important, they provide the rules and the monitoring to help avoid future calamities.

All the way back in 1969, when Congress and Presidents still talked to each other, bi-partisan laws were written to protect our environment.  President Nixon wanted to implement the laws efficiently so he created the EPA by executive order and he had bi-partisan support for that action.  Since then many previously endangered species of birds are back because EPA banned DDT.  I never saw a bald eagle, our nation’s symbol, in the wild until I was an adult.  EPA evaluates pesticides for safety and writes the rules governing their use.  When the quality of drinking water is evaluated, the standards that are used were researched and developed by the EPA.  The rules that govern what can be injected into the earth near the water table come from the EPA.  Before those rules, wells were vulnerable to pollution from nearby property.  The honeybee population is necessary to pollinating our food plants but the bee population has declined precipitously.  EPA is helping with the research to learn how to protect them.

In its work, EPA  must seek a balance between protecting our shared environment, the rights of individuals, and economic development.  Rarely does any interest group get everything that it wants so disagreements and even litigation are sometimes unavoidable.  From that messy and often contentious process, the EPA produces workable policies.

The EPA is an exceptional bargain.  For all of their work including research, rule making, monitoring, enforcement and education their total spending accounts for less than two tenths of one percent of federal spending.  Eliminating it would not even make a blip in government spending but it would create chaos in energy policy and every aspect of environmental safety.

If I understand my TEA Party friends correctly, they hate waste and want to see their tax dollars spent productively.  The ones that I know also value clean water and air.  We may disagree on how many rules we need or how strict they should be but I haven’t met a conservative American yet who wants to totally eliminate the government role in protecting our environment.  The EPA has efficiently and effectively enforced environmental laws; consistently performing well in a challenging and controversial job

How would elimination of the EPA affect our environment and safety?  If Representative Ellmers is to credibly represent citizens she must address that question and justify her statement.   It is not clear whether she respects her constituents enough to do that.