Everybody wants clean air and water. But some believe that the only way to achieve these objectives is for the federal government to impose heavy-handed regulation. CEI disagrees with this mindset and to the extent that there is government involvement, there should be a shift away from DC and towards a state and local role on air and water quality issues.

Those closer to environmental problems and impacted by them know these issues better and care about them more than DC bureaucrats pushing one-size-fits-all policies. This vision is in line with what Congress intended when it passed the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act (CWA). Both statutes intended for states to play the primary role on air and water quality. Over the years though, the EPA has usurped state and local power and ignored Congressional intent.

The United States has some of the best air quality in the world, something that sometimes get lost given all of the scare tactics that are disseminated in the media. CEI has been a leader in pushing back against such alarmism, as well as the junk science and regulatory games that the EPA plays to improperly justify costly air quality regulations.

CEI believes that any air quality standards should be informed by sound science and do more good than harm. This is hardly controversial, but it remains an uphill battle with an often out of control EPA.

When it comes to the CWA, there has long been regulatory uncertainty. For decades, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have continued to overreach on what waters are even regulated under the Clean Water Act. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court finally provided some clarification on this key issue in Sackett v. EPA, but the Biden administration is not implementing the opinion properly.

CEI has extensive CWA expertise, especially when it comes to the “Waters of the United States” or WOTUS issue, and is using that expertise to ensure that the federal government follows the law, respects the principles of federalism embedded in the CWA, and provides clear and workable definitions for property owners. This is just part of our CWA work, which also covers issues such as state abuse of the Section 401 certification process and EPA retroactive vetoes of Section 404 permits.

Featured Posts

Search Posts

Op-Eds

Sensible Policy Lost in Smog

 The Environmental Protection Agency recently launched its massive new plan to fight smog. Get ready for another <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags” />Washington mandate that will do more economic harm than environmental good.  Ozone, the primary constituent of smog, is a lung irritant caused by motor vehicle and industrial pollution as well as natural emissions. Smog was perhaps the single biggest reason for the 1970 Clean Air Act, and has been heavily regulated since. According to EPA, it has declined more than 30 percent in the last three decades.   Outside several trouble spots in California, virtually the entire nation now is in or near compliance with existing ozone air quality standards. And, due to measures already in the works (new motor vehicle emissions standards starting with the 2004 model year, new control requirements for power plants), those areas not yet in compliance are on their way toward it.  Despite lack of evidence the existing ozone standard was deficient, the Clinton administration decided to tighten it. EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee concluded this tougher standard would not be “significantly more protective of public health,” and called the change a “policy judgment.” The agency's own cost-benefit analysis found the modest marginal benefits of the new standard outweighed by its costs. Nonetheless, EPA went ahead with the rule, sparking several years of legal challenges, all the way to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court essentially deferred to EPA's judgment, and upheld the new standard. However, the legal delays meant this Clinton administration's rule, first promulgated in 1997, would have to be implemented by its successor. And George Bush's EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt now has obliged.   Mr. Leavitt estimates compliance costs of $50 billion over the next 15 years. The specific control measures for the 474 counties currently violating the new standard will depend on the extent of noncompliance in each county.  The possibilities include more stringent requirements on new or substantially modified industrial facilities, restrictions on highway construction projects, measures affecting small businesses, and more onerous vehicle inspection programs. Each of the 31 states with non-attainment areas must submit a compliance plan for EPA approval by 2007. These plans will likely remain in effect many years after.  The expense will affect employment, traffic congestion, and the cost of living. Even gasoline prices may be pushed up. Areas violating the new smog standard may have to use one of the costly specialized gasoline blends that have proliferated in recent years. And many refiners now will have more difficulty obtaining approval for much-needed capacity increases.  Of course, EPA's announcement of the rule gave the impression the U.S. smog problem is worsening. Nothing could be more untrue. But while the benefits of this new standard may prove hard to identify, the costs almost certainly will not.

Energy and Environment

Newsletter

Vol. VIII, No. 8

Politics  Candidate Kerry on Kyoto and Global Warming   The campaign web site of Senator John Kerry (D—Mass.) only briefly mentions what…

Climate

Op-Eds

A Clear Mistake

The Clear Skies Initiative, President Bush's big environmental bill targeting power plant emissions, appears to be stalled in Congress.  In an effort to…

Climate

Staff & Scholars

Daren Bakst

Director of the Center for Energy and Environment and Senior Fellow

  • Energy and Environment
  • Lands and Wildlife
  • Property Rights

Sam Kazman

Counsel Emeritus

  • Antitrust
  • Automobiles and Roads
  • Banking and Finance

Marlo Lewis, Jr.

Senior Fellow

  • Climate
  • Energy
  • Energy and Environment

Ben Lieberman

Senior Fellow

  • Climate
  • Consumer Freedom
  • Energy

Angela Logomasini

Adjunct Fellow

  • Chemical Risk
  • Consumer Freedom
  • Energy and Environment