Environmental deja vu

In 1983, then EPA Administrator Anne Burford was forced to resign after she was cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over Superfund records, arguing that they were protected by executive privilege.

Twenty-five years later, Stephen Johnson, the worst EPA chief since the scandal-ridden Buford, may soon find himself in a similar bind for withholding information from Congress about the Bush administration’s decision to reject California’s attempt to enforce its greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles.

It’s worth taking a moment to explore these two stonewalling EPA chiefs – to examine the similarities, but also to see how times have changed in the past quarter century.

Burford, known as Anne Gorsuch until her marriage to Robert Burford, an aide to Interior Secretary James Watt, took office in 1981, determined to carry out President Ronald Reagan’s desire to take what he viewed as out-of-control bureaucrats at the environmental agency. (Reagan was known for such comments as “trees cause more pollution than automobiles do,” and “if you’ve seen one redwood, you’ve seen them all.”)

Burford had been a state lawmaker in Colorado – part of a group of anti-big government zealots known as “crazies” – and came in to office with an agenda to purge competent EPA senior managers (the Heritage Foundation had compiled a hit list), cut the agency’s budget, and transfer as much authority as possible to state governments.

During her 22-month tenure at EPA, Burford was often pretty loose in her interpretation of her responsibilities. For instance, she once told a New Mexico-based refiner that it could, with impunity, ignore EPA restrictions on lead in gasoline. https://courses.washington.edu/uconj540/Readings/needleman_2000.pdf

She ultimately took the fall for Reagan, gearing up for re-election and eager to stem the tide of bad publicity for her executions of White House orders. (The administration eventually gave up its claim of executive privilege and handed over the contested documents.)

Current EPA chief Johnson faces an interesting parallel situation now that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has issued a subpoena for an uncensored copy of an internal EPA staff presentation about the California vehicle standards. http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1735

You may recall that Johnson rejected the California request despite reports that EPA staffers had concluded not only that California had met appropriate legal tests, but that an EPA rejection would probably be ruled illegal by the courts. http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2008/01/03/epas_holy_roller.php

Of course, the Bush EPA is no stranger to making illegal decision that help polluting industries. Just last Friday, a federal appeals court ruled that Johnson had acted illegally in crafting industry-friendly mercury pollution requirements for coal-burning electric power companies. The same court earlier shot down an earlier attempt by the Bush EPA to create loopholes for coal-burning power companies. And, of course, the Supreme Court ruled – contrary to claims by the Bush administration – that the EPA does have authority under current law to limit global warming pollution.

Like Burford, Johnson has quietly acquiesced to EPA budget cuts and has presided over cutbacks in enforcement, particularly against the politically favored electric power industry. Johnson even has his own so-far quiet scandal involving lead pollution. (EPA’s science advisers are recommending that existing lead pollution standards should be made much tougher because lead can poison the brains of children even at the smallest levels of exposure. But EPA has floated the idea of keeping current standards unchanged – or even eliminating them altogether.)

There are, of course, striking differences between Burford, so cold in temperament that she was known as the “Ice Queen,” and the superficially affable Johnson.

Burford was an obvious political hack with no administrative experience or scientific background. Johnson is more a political hack in a scientist’s suit, having worked his way up the ranks of EPA’s notoriously industry-friendly pesticide division. http://www.epa.gov/administrator/biography.htm Like Burford, Johnson appears ready to cave in to White House pro-polluter demands at the drop of a hat, though he does pretend that he’s making the decisions. Buford thoroughly demoralized EPA staff through her draconian budget cuts. Johnson hasn’t plunged morale to the same depths, but his decision on California disgusted agency insiders who know the truth.

One stark difference is the shifting perception of state and federal governments and their attitudes towards environmental protection. While Burford sought to shift as much power as possible to state governments (thought then to be more industry friendly), Johnson has actually done the opposite: tried to block states such as California and the numerous other states that want to deal with global warming.

That’s probably a reflection on just how bad the Bush administration has been when it comes to environmental protection.

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future