The Case for Trimming the EPA

The EPA, just as large as it ever was, is now on autopilot, churning out rules and regulations without heed to cost or competing values. It spends huge sums chasing the tiniest of risks.

smog inspection-body.jpg


Most of our national environmental laws were enacted from 1970 to 1990, and have rarely been amended since. That was a time when America knew no limits: We had gone to the moon; next we were going to cure cancer and eliminate all pollution. Today, there is still a widely shared passion for sound stewardship of the Earth but achieving our goals will require amending obsolete environmental laws to adapt to our current situation.

Many of our environmental laws still command the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to eliminate pollution without regard to economic or job costs. They put the EPA on autopilot churning out one rule after another without heed to cost or competing values. Today in some (but not all) EPA rules, we spend huge sums chasing tiny risks that probably don't actually exist and thereby kill jobs and steal from the poor.

We limp along, adapting our laws to new issues by administrative interpretation, but there are limits to how far that can go.

We are victims of our own success. Rivers no longer catch fire and our air is cleaner. But the EPA is just as large as it ever was, and it has developed ever more effective and intrusive regulatory techniques with the advent of computers and modeling.

Admittedly, detailed regulations were once needed to get industry to do the right thing. For example, the EPA issued a six-page, single-spaced guidance document on what industry can and cannot burn. But after industry gets the message and makes sustainability a priority, there is no way to get rid of these detailed command-and-control regulations, which can get in the way of progress.

I had to advise a distillery to stop saving energy by burning its own alcohol waste, and instead to dump it into the ocean. They had to replace the heat value with imported foreign oil. The alcohol waste was considered "hazardous waste" because it was "ignitable," and it was illegal at that time to burn hazardous waste. In other words, it was illegal to burn it because it would burn!

There is no way in our system to declare victory and re-prioritize. We keep fighting past battles for symbolic reasons and inertia long after the war is largely won. We should be moving on to new wars, such as climate change and boosting energy efficiency. Our environmental laws were not written with these goals in mind, however, and do not give the EPA the best tools for pursuing them. So the agency struggles to adapt what it has.

We have no way of making minor but necessary mid-course corrections to our laws. Congress can still legislate when it must in response to such major crises as 9/11 or the financial collapse. But if a law is working tolerably badly, as most environmental laws do, there is no way that a partisan Congress can amend them. If a public policy issue is below Congress's threshold of pain, politicians would rather posture for the next election than compromise.

Solving the nation's most entrenched problems See full coverage

So we limp along adapting our laws to new issues by administrative interpretation, but there are limits to how far that can go. For instance, although there is a consensus that a cap-and-trade system is the best way to deal with such far-flung problems as climate change and regional haze, the EPA has lost in court two out of three times when it has tried to interpret its existing authority to allow it to mandate trading systems.

Presented by

E. Donald Elliott, an adjunct professor of law at Yale Law School, is an academic scholar and a practitioner in the fields of administrative and environmental law. More

Elliott has been on the Yale Law faculty since 1981 and currently teaches courses in environmental law, energy law, administrative law and civil procedure. He is also a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of the international law firm, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, where he chairs the firm’s worldwide Environment, Health, and Safety Department.

From 1989 to 1991, Elliott served as Assistant Administrator and General Counsel of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 1993, he was named the Julien and Virginia Cornell Chair in Environmental Law and Litigation at Yale Law School, the first endowed chair in environmental law and policy at any major American law school. From 2003-2009, he was a member of the National Academy of Sciences Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, which advises the federal government on environmental issues. Elliott also testifies frequently in Congress on environmental issues.

He has served as a consultant on improving the relationship of law and science to the Federal Courts Study Committee, which was chartered by Congress to make recommendations for improving the federal courts, and to the Carnegie Commission for Law, Science and Government. He co-chaired the National Environmental Policy Institute’s Committee on Improving Science at EPA.

Elliott is a Senior Fellow of the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) and an elected member of the American College of Environmental Lawyers, as well as a member of the boards of the Environmental Law Institute, the Center for Clean Air Policy, and NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity. He is the author or co-author of seven books and has published more than 70 articles in professional journals. He was named one of the top 25 environmental attorneys in the United States by the National Law Journal and is highly ranked in Chambers USA: Leading Lawyers for Business; Best Lawyers in America; D.C. Super Lawyers; Who’s Who in American Law; and Who’s Who in the World.

He earned both his B.A., summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, and his J.D. from Yale. Following graduation, he was a law clerk for Gerhard Gesell in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and for Chief Judge David Bazelon of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well. Bestselling author Mark Bittman teaches James Hamblin the recipe that everyone is Googling.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

blog comments powered by Disqus


How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well.


Before Tinder, a Tree

Looking for your soulmate? Write a letter to the "Bridegroom's Oak" in Germany.


The Health Benefits of Going Outside

People spend too much time indoors. One solution: ecotherapy.


Where High Tech Meets the 1950s

Why did Green Bank, West Virginia, ban wireless signals? For science.


Yes, Quidditch Is Real

How J.K. Rowling's magical sport spread from Hogwarts to college campuses


Would You Live in a Treehouse?

A treehouse can be an ideal office space, vacation rental, and way of reconnecting with your youth.

More in Health

Just In