The Impact of the EPA

by Diane M. Calabrese | Published September 2026

 

 

What can turn frustration into fascination? Context for one, and clarity for another.

There is no question that in the five-plus decades of its existence the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has sometimes vexed businesses, including those in our industry, with much of the vexation stemming from the question, just what exactly am I expected to do to be in compliance?

That question has hung in the air well before the EPA was created by an executive order issued by President Richard Nixon in 1970. With the official start of the EPA on December 2, 1970, a consolidation of already ongoing environmental protection efforts began.

Among the departments that already existed and were shifted to the EPA were those for dealing with water pollution (originally within Department of Interior), air pollution, and solid waste (originally within Department of Health, Education, and Welfare), pesticide registration (originally within Department of Agriculture), and setting radiation levels (originally within Federal Radiation Council).

The foregoing is the short list of consolidated entities. Readers recognize immediately that changes in department names and in responsibilities continued after establishment of the EPA.

Things change, and the changes occur not only in the boundaries of federal departments and agencies but also in focus.

Under the current administration, the EPA has been changing many rules, ranging from thresholds for defining harmful chemicals to limits on emissions from vehicles. Changes in priorities with presidents is not new, but it does result in difficulties for businesses striving to remain in compliance with rules.

William D. Ruckelshaus moved from a role in the Department of Justice to serve as the first director of the EPA. A few years later, he would get tangled up like others in the Watergate drama, but he would still serve two nonconsecutive stints as director at EPA.

The unanimous confirmation of Ruckelshaus by the U.S. Senate belies the amount of conflict among senators in 1970 over how much enforcement of environmental rules should be done by states and how much by the federal government. Ruckelshaus had given a lawyerly response that satisfied senators to the effect that with the power of the federal government behind them states would do more to enforce rules.

So here we are in 2026 with the EPA at 56 years. Disagreements about priorities and oversight continue as they always have, and members of our industry and others must sort through expectations.

Industry members now and then must cope with both the perception and the reality of unequal enforcement of rules. Now, of course, there is the added dimension of state rules that have a national impact, such as SORE (small off-road engine) from the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

California has a long reach with SORE (and other rules such as Prop 65 cancer warnings) because it’s a huge state. If manufacturers want to sell products within California’s borders, the products must meet the state’s standards. (Looking to figure out which way federal environmental rules are going if there’s a change in party control in Washington? Consult the rules in the Golden State.)

Again, there’s nothing new. As the EPA was getting its bearings, the Air Pollution Control Administration that it subsumed was being criticized by some senators for too little oversight. One of them pointed out that the only recent real action taken had been against a small chicken-offal rendering plant.

 

July 9, 1970

Rejecting what he characterized as the “piecemeal” and the “disjointed” efforts in the protection of the environment, President Nixon issued Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 on July 9, 1970. In it he wrote, “Our government today is not structured to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our food.”

The reorganization plan resulted in the EPA less than six months later. Read the entire plan from July 9, 1970.

[N.B. As we write in mid-July 2026, the EPA repository for the document cited carries the advisory that the archive is not being maintained and text may disappear. In this instance, the Nixon presidential library in Yorba Linda, CA, will still have a copy. But the worrying trend of documents disappearing from federal websites is a concern to all and one that professional organizations in our industry might want to add to their considerable list of concerns to address through public comment.]

The EPA reorganization built upon a focused environmental policy initiative that began on January 1, 1970, when Nixon signed the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) into law. NEPA requires federal agencies to assess environmental effects of their activities/actions before making decisions.

NEPA was a two-part act with the first part establishing the requirements and the second creating the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to deal with enforcement of NEPA rules.

We have written elsewhere about things being in flux at EPA. So, it is not only with scrubbing of archives but also scrubbing of rules. On April 11, 2025, all CEQ rules were removed from the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). The rationale given was that each entity could devise its own oversight.

Discussing the impact of the EPA on our industry is difficult at this moment in time because things are changing from moment to moment. In March the EPA announced a focus on PFAs (per- and polyfluoroalkyls) that has yet to see implementation as intended and probably will not. A billion dollars of grant money for cleaning up drinking water systems was promised, and the disposition of that is uncertain too.

Uncertainty and rapid shifts in policy characterize the EPA today. (That’s possibly why we identified no industry members who wanted to talk to us about what’s happening.)

For example, Lee Zeldin, the current head of EPA and the 17^th person to hold the administrator position, has been overseeing revisions to the Clean Water Act (CWA). Some of the revisions make sense, such as ensuring small bodies of fresh water that are more puddles than genuine ponds do not get caught in rules.

Other revisions contemplated or being made probably need more public comment and more informed debate, but changes are happening with neither one.

Earlier this year the endangerment clause that acknowledged pollutants in air changed climate—at least at the micro-level—was eliminated. Again, more comments and more debate prior to changes would have instilled greater confidence in the decision to alter course.

“In flux” may be too soft a characterization regarding the current (July 2026) initiatives and changes at EPA. Two things to remember: State and local regulators in many regions continue to set rules to reduce environmental impact of activities. Compliance with state and local regulations is an imperative.

Moreover, remaining compliant with state and local rules will likely serve as a good foundation for members of our industry if EPA focus changes with a change in federal government. Residential, commercial, and industrial customers (including business-to-business) served by a business also appreciate a company that demonstrates concern for the environment.

A clarification regarding the state and local regulations begins with the reminder there is a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which in the past nudged municipalities and states toward reducing effluents. The NPDES did so by requiring permits and setting limits on amounts of pollutants that can be released within water authority areas (which could be a state, region, tribal authority, or private).

The NPDES is undergoing revision, which would shift focus to preventing pollutants (with documentation) from being released at worksites like construction. In turn, tallies of effluent contents would be skipped.

Uncertainty over what comes next in NPDES is high. It’s compounded by a backlog in permitting. (Permits to water authorities are good for five years and then require renewal.)

If it seems as though there is uncertainty over what will change next at the EPA, that’s because there is. Professional organizations whose members have long looked to the EPA for clear guidance on what their members should be doing to meet regulatory obligations now have a special responsibility.

That responsibility is to keep members focused on best practices in water, fuel, and chemical use, even though EPA guidance has become murky or disappeared. The current state of the EPA would probably distress President Nixon, who emphasized the tight link between the environment and quality of life.

Nixon wrote forcefully about the need for the EPA—a need he embraced even though it went against his own principle of not creating new independent agencies. He summarized his executive order with this:

Because environmental protection cuts across so many jurisdictions, and because arresting environmental deterioration is of great importance to the quality of life in our country and the world, I believe that in this case a strong, independent agency is needed. That agency would, of course, work closely with and draw upon the expertise and assistance of other agencies having experience in the environmental area.

These are fascinating times.