Texas and the EPA

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.  The Environmental Protection Agency.  You'd think that with same goals in mind, that there would be a good partnership between the two.  But no.

Politics.  Obama, Democrat, Federal.  Perry, Republican, State.  Obama picks the head of EPA, who picks the head of the regional EPA offices.  Perry picks who sits on the commission.

So, we have two political entities clashing over what's best for Texas.  Right now, the EPA says the way Texas is doing things is wrong.  Texas says it's right, and that it's working, and here's the proof.  And yes, the TCEQ can back up what they say rather convincingly.

So why does the EPA continue?  They can read and understand the numbers, that air quality is definitely improving in Texas despite having great growth.  Maybe... just maybe, and I'm totally guessing and haven't read anything on this, but maybe it's because the environment has been a democratic cause.  Gore has been going on about anthropogenic global warming of course, but "the environment" is one of those things that democrats have been putting on the platform.  So, it must be a little disconcerting to them that a Republican state, with a Republican leader for the last, what, 14 years I think, has been successful at improving air quality.

With Texas, the Democratic Party loses leverage on the issue.  So, maybe they're thinking they'll take control over how it's done, while air quality continues to improve, and can take credit by the time Obama runs for re-election.

Thing is, Obama is looking to be a one-term president.  I think people are waking up from whatever hope they thought they were voting for, and realizing that this guy is no Reagan.  I'm sure this isn't lost on Perry or the TCEQ, and they only need wait this out until the next election.  For Texas, I hope they're right, and it's really going to depend on what Republican runs against Obama.  I kinda hope Perry goes for it, but we may be too close on the heels of Bush.  Though Obama right now is looking to be about on par as Bush.

But who's really right?

Let's look at the respective heads.  For TCEQ, you have three commissioners, two seem to be very knowledgeable scientists, and one is not so scientific but was an aide to Perry, apparently.  Two out of three ain't bad.

For EPA, you have Al Armendariz.  He's an academic type, got his PhD in 2002.  He's originally from El Paso, so maybe the whole ASARCO mess there helped form his opinions on TCEQ.  So, making him the head of the EPA region is interesting to say the least.  It will be a new environment for him, he's mainly been in school his whole life, and has only been advocating and providing testimony against air polluters while they get their permits.  It'll be interesting to see him transform himself into the role, and will be interesting to see if he reverts after he leaves the EPA, which he will in due time.

So, of the two groups, who's right?  I think bias evens out between the two.  So, let's go with practical experience, and let's go with actual data.  TCEQ wins. Period.  Al Armendariz is simply unproven.  I don't care how much you've bitched and complained about Texas' air quality or the TCEQ, that does not make you qualified to be a regional head, and so I call Al Armendariz a puppet.

One of the things Al Armendariz's appointment was to signal is EPA's determination to bring Texas in line... flexing muscle, if you will.  The muscle is EPA takeover of Texas air programs.  Can they do that?  Well, yes, if Texas isn't meeting a federal minimum under the Clean Air Act (CAA).  And that's a question EPA would be hard pressed to show, given the success Texas has had.  That doesn't mean that EPA can't or won't, but it's a definite hurdle.

Here's another hurdle if the EPA decided to take over... they'd have to take over.  And that, is a huge hurdle.  Would their process be as successful as the current one?  Where have they had a successful program before?  In a 5 minute (if that long) Google search, I couldn't find anything.  I saw groups asking the EPA to take over a couple of state air programs, Texas was one, but nothing indicating a takeover or their successful implementation.  I could be wrong, I didn't spend much time looking after all, but I'm inclined to believe that EPA doesn't have the budget to do it alone.

Sure, if they took over then money ordinarily given to Texas to help implement the CAA could be used to help them start up their program.  But, that's not enough money.  They'd require more, for sure, without doubt.  Why?  Because federal workers, recently coming out in the news, make more money that private sector counterparts.  And I know state workers make less than the private sector.  So yeah, it'll be really expensive for them to do that.  Of course, if you can paint it as economic stimulus...

Nah, not going to happen.  This is all posturing, I go back to the initial observation that this is the Democrats vs. the GOP.  It's not a battle that EPA even wants to win, really.  If they were to win, they'd lose, definitely.  No, if they're smart, they won't even show up at the battlefield.  The only way they would is if Obama says something like, "Screw the economy, let's just try to win something."  Healthcare, dead.  Economy, "too big to fail" has the people pissed.  The only bright spot may be the war, the one post he kept a Bush appointee.

So, yeah, unless things get a lot, and I mean a LOT, brighter for Obama, EPA takeover of Texas' air program would not be stupid, but whacky crazy stupid.  That dog won't hunt.

Texas, the projected winner.