The EPA needs funding to be able to protect the public from all the pollution that the EPA is currently supposed to protect us from. Adding this new mandate won’t help without the funding to back it up. We should be making the polluter (or chemical manufacturer) pay for the testing and cleanup of their messes.
Jane: Thanks for your comment. Happily the Lautenberg Act does add a new source of funding for EPA: user fees to be paid directly by manufacturers and processors of chemicals, with the level initially set at up to $25 million annually but with an ability to raise them to match the pace of EPA chemical reviews. The old law had a much lower level and funds went to the general treasury, not directly to EPA. The new fees are on top of EPA’s federally appropriated budget. While total funding is still modest in comparison to the magnitude of the task at hand, it’s a major improvement over the old law.
2 Comments
The EPA needs funding to be able to protect the public from all the pollution that the EPA is currently supposed to protect us from. Adding this new mandate won’t help without the funding to back it up. We should be making the polluter (or chemical manufacturer) pay for the testing and cleanup of their messes.
Jane: Thanks for your comment. Happily the Lautenberg Act does add a new source of funding for EPA: user fees to be paid directly by manufacturers and processors of chemicals, with the level initially set at up to $25 million annually but with an ability to raise them to match the pace of EPA chemical reviews. The old law had a much lower level and funds went to the general treasury, not directly to EPA. The new fees are on top of EPA’s federally appropriated budget. While total funding is still modest in comparison to the magnitude of the task at hand, it’s a major improvement over the old law.