Posted on 02/28/2017 7:06:57 AM PST by rktman
President Donald Trump will ask Congress to cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget 24 percent, or nearly $2 billion, according to sources familiar with the budget plans.
The White House sent draft budget plans to agency heads Monday, detailing billions of dollars in cuts to a wide range of federal programs. Cuts to EPA and other agencies will fund a $54 billion increase in defense spending.
A source informed of the budget plans told E&E News Trump will push for a nearly $2 billion cut to EPA’s $8.1 billion budget. A source told Politico Trump also “proposed reducing EPA’s 15,000-strong workforce to 12,000, a level not seen since the mid-1980s.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Real reason for this? LSM reports that Trump HATES clean air and water. Favors returning to the use of lead paint.
Expect the Democrats to trot out the little kids from Flint, MI and elsewhere to say that the president cutting funding at the EPA means they’ll be drinking polluted water and breathing in polluted air caused by factories owned by the rich.
Cutting 15,000 down to 12,000 EPA workers is not good enough for me. And for certain we need to clean house on the whole Global Warming Idiocy. Wipe that one clean, Donald.
And ... what is to stop Trump from starting the layoffs TODAY? Just because there is an existing 2017 budget do you get impeached if you fail to spend the full budget? I doubt it.
I hope he’ll cut it another 70% next year, leaving only enough staff to fit in a small room. You don’t need many people to process block grants to the states so they can take care of their own cleanup projects. That was all the EPA was supposed to be involved with, instead of morphing into a huge bureaucracy that made up its own laws to oppress land owners.
The proposal immediately sparked concerns that the regulatory power could extend into seasonal ponds, streams and ditches, including those on private property.
"The ... rule may be one of the most significant private property grabs in U.S. history," said Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
The EPA proposal would apply pollution regulations to the country's so-called "intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands" -- which are created during wet seasons, or simply after it rains, but are temporary.
At issue is whether the smaller streams and wetlands are indeed part of the "waters of the United States."
The Supreme Court ruled on the issue in 2001 and 2006. The second ruling restricted the federal government's authority by stating such waters must be "relatively" permanent or continuously flowing and sizeable, like "oceans, rivers, streams and lakes."
In defending the proposed change, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers said Tuesday that determining Clean Water Act protection for streams and wetlands became "confusing and complex" following the high court decisions.
"For nearly a decade, members of Congress, state and local officials, industry, agriculture, environmental groups, and the public asked for a rulemaking to provide clarity," the agencies said in a joint statement.
They also argued such waters "form the foundation of the nation's water resources" and the changes would not extend the federal government's reach. "To be clear, our proposal does not add to or expand the scope of the waters historically protected under the Clean Water Act," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a video accompanying the announcement.
The EPA also said roughly 60 percent of "stream miles" in the country only flow seasonally or after rain but have a "considerable impact" on downstream waters -- and that about 117 million Americans, or one in three, get their drinking water from public systems that rely in part on such streams.
The proposal is now subject to a 90-day comment period in which federal officials vowed to conduct a "robust" public outreach effort that will include discussions across the country to gather the input needed "to shape a final rule." The agencies said the proposed change is supported by the latest peer-reviewed science.
However, Vitter accused the EPA of "picking and choosing" its science while trying to "take another step toward outright permitting authority over virtually any wet area in the country."
He also warned the proposed change, if approved, would open the door for more environmental groups suing private property owners.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, echoed those concerns, saying the change "could result in serious collateral damage to our economy."
"[I]t appears that the EPA is seeking to dramatically expand its jurisdictional reach under the Clean Water Act," she said in a statement. The senator added that the change could have a huge impact on Alaska.
"If EPA is not careful, this rule could effectively give the federal government control of nearly all of our state -- and prove to be a showstopper for both traditional access and new development," she said.
Trump Pushes For Massive Budget, Staff Cuts At EPA >>>>>>>>>>
Another win! The president is preventing global swarming.
The problem is not the EPA.
The problem is the laws they are enforcing, which due to vague language and delegation of lawmaking authority have created a monster.
Fix Congress and you won’t have to fix the EPA.
last one out please shut the squiggly mercury filled lights and lock the door.
Can’t happen fast enough for me.
We never got this from Bush I or Bush II. In fact, Bush I expanded the EPA. The last time we had a president who significantly cut back the EPA was Reagan, and that was 30 years ago.
Trump better keep a skeleton staff at the EPA just to clean up after the environmental protests. Look at the mess left by the pipeline protesters in North Dakota with human waste now being washed into the Missouri River and tons of garbage that needs to be removed before the spring floods.
Yep the liberals will see this as rejecting a clean environment.
In fact the liberals believe Republicans are in favor of dirty water and dirty air. Their demented thinking leads them to such conclusions.
I see nothing wrong with cutting the E.P.A.’s budget by 4 billion dollars.Those dollars are wasted anyway and they are used to inhibit economic productivity.
Now I hope President Trump follows up with massive cuts to the Department of Education.An agency that hinders and obstructs a quality education.
“Trump better keep a skeleton staff at the EPA just to clean up after the environmental protests.”
Proper policing will eliminate the problem.
Cuts mean nothing. The leftist-progressive roots remain, and they will grow quickly once a leftist ideologue gets back to the Presidency.
There is a very brief window where real change can be made. Agencies must be completely eliminated. Start with the Department of Education.
Agreed, so get out there and change Congress for us, will ya?
“Massive budget cuts and Staff cuts”.
These mean nothing to me, I am waiting for the MASSIVE EXECUTIONS.
Just about everybody knew that downsizing of EPA was coming. The bitter-enders are not prepared, however, for the almost total phase-out of the Federal EPA.
But if not extinguished altogether, and the few remaining functions transferred away to a more appropriate agency, expect it to be re-expanded the day Democrats (or their successors and assigns) get back at the levers of power.
The cuts are insufficient. It needs to be a One Hundred percent reduction.
Patience, Grasshopper, it’s a start.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.