The Trump Administration's Reduction in EPA Funding
The Trump administration has drastically reduced the funding of the Environmental Protection Agency. This has been interpreted as a move by Trump's administration to prioritize industrial development over environmental improvement. This was one of his campaign slogans that helped him gain support from prominent businesspeople. The cut meant a 25% drop in the agency's enforcement budget. This move is bound to stymie the agency's capacity to prosecute environmental law violators, a path it had previously successfully traversed. The reduction will have a significant impact on the agency's staff, culminating in the loss of almost 3,800 employees. The cut comes as a shock to the agency being the lowest budget allocation for over 40 years. This directly affects operations of enforce compliance office which is responsible for ensuring corporations meet their federal regulations. This reduces environmental enforcement on corporations with questionable processes and systems that puts the environmental at risk (Portney, 2016).
The Impact on Environmental Clean-up Programs and Compliance
The cut further affects several of the agency's programs that were aimed at environmental clean-up as well as the provision of information on environmentally compliant appliances. This will lead to up-shoot of several firms that may have compromised (Bomberg, 2017). Whether politically or economically motivated, cuts are bound to have a huge impact on the agency's operations as well as further consequences on the environment. This will further cascade into the level and corporation may start engaging in activities that pollute the environment.
Challenges
The reduction puts the environment at risk as well as those living in industrialized areas. The agency has in the past carried out over 22,000 inspections per year that leads to over 3000 civil actions. Its role has often eclipsed that of state authorities by acting as the de facto authority in environmental protection. It has helped to preserve the environment in areas that have inadequate resources to fight environmental pollution. The cuts, therefore, jeopardize the agency's ability to inspect environmental whose state agencies have no capability to undertake inspections.
This move further renders ineffective the highly trained personnel working for the agency who will be rendered underutilized by inadequate funds. This will have a consequence on the ongoing civil actions as well as the court cases. The agency has acted neutrally in environmental cases due to its non-partisanism. Delegating its role to state agencies will compromise the environment due to the possibility of political influence on the specific issues on the environment. This will lead to the proliferation of many companies and firms that may put the environment at risks due to their incompetent activities (Bomberg, 2017).
Solutions
The agency's administration is therefore faced with a huge challenge in the future of their organization. They face that challenge in determining the effective allocation of their minimal resource to have a huge impact on the environment. The leaders are further the challenge of losing their highly trained personnel in the wake of the cuts. This requires proper strategies to retain some qualified employees. As the agency undertakes the cuts, some operation positions will be essential in the future of the firm as well as its current progress. The administrations, therefore, has to compromise its selection to ensure its continuity.
Most of the environmental protection will be dealt with by local and state agencies. This provides an opportunity for the agency to transfer its personnel as well as the technical know-how of environmental protection. It can, therefore, undertake a delegation of some of its duties to the state levels. Training of the state level agencies can go along well in equipping them with the necessary knowledge on environmental protection. This can assist in the continuity of its agenda at the state level. It is worth noting that this move is bound to bear the risk of political manipulation at the various states. This proves a challenge as some political outfits in the state levels may be manipulated by business leaders to compromise the operations in their favor. The agency must undertake its role in building the capacity of the local agencies with the aim of providing delegation in environmental protection. The agency can further develop a reward program for the corporation with the most environmentally friendly system and processes. This can be done through the development of inspection systems that grade the level of the different corporation's processes and they strive in achieving environmental friendliness. The process can further have different classes that will be classified depending on the level of commitment from different companies. This can be further marketed to the consumer and assist them in the purchase of items only from environmentally friendly companies.
References
Bomberg, E. (2017). Environmental politics in the Trump era: an early assessment. Environmental Politics, 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2017.1332543?needAccess=true. Accessed 7 July, 2017.
Portney, P. R. (Ed.). (2016). Public policies for environmental protection. Washington, D. C.: RFF Press. Retrieved from https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stavins/files/introduction_to_rff_policy_book.pdf. Accessed 7 July, 2017.
