SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A03

LENGTH: 964 words

HEADLINE: Bush Plan Shifts Power Over Polluters to States; EPA's Enforcement Activities Would Be Scaled Back

BYLINE: Eric Pianin and Michael Grunwald, Washington Post Staff Writers

BODY:


The Bush administration would begin to shift some responsibility for enforcing federal environmental protection laws from the Environmental Protection Agency to the states under a plan contained in budget documents released yesterday.

As a first step, the administration's proposed fiscal 2002 budget would cut $ 10 million, resulting in a 9 percent reduction in the EPA's enforcement staff in Washington and regional offices, while providing the states with $ 25 million in grants to step up enforcement and $ 25 million more for environmental assessments.

The proposal, if approved by Congress, would mark a significant departure from a more aggressive policy of federal enforcement and prosecution of polluters since the EPA's creation in 1970. The agency was founded during the Nixon administration to address environmental problems that were being ignored by state and local officials or that were beyond the resources of the states to address. States have a mixed record of enforcement, with some taking an aggressive role and others tolerating flagrant violations of environmental laws by industry, according to environmentalists and federal enforcement experts. It has fallen to the EPA and the Justice Department to ensure relative uniformity in the enforcement of environmental laws and to pursue complicated civil and criminal cases beyond the capability of states to handle on their own.

Yesterday, for example, Koch Industries Inc., one of the country's biggest oil pipeline companies, agreed to pay $ 20 million in fines to avoid trial on Justice Department charges that it violated federal air pollution laws and then tried to cover it up.

President Bush said during last year's campaign that he wanted to give states more influence over the enforcement of laws affecting their residents and economies. EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton, both former state officials, have said they know what it's like to be on the receiving end of heavy-handed federal mandates. Both favor programs that allow industrial polluters to voluntarily comply with laws without the threat of prosecution.

Whitman defended the administration's plan to begin scaling back EPA enforcement activities, saying state authorities are better positioned to pursue many environmental cases "in a way that reflects individual state priorities."

"In some cases, that will mean prosecution," she said. "In others, it will mean compliance assistance. But no matter which course is chosen, it will produce the best possible result in each individual situation."

However, environmental groups alarmed by Bush cuts in environmental and Interior Department programs warned that efforts to shift enforcement responsibilities to state officials could prove disastrous.

"It seems the EPA is being punished for its successful enforcement activities in the last five years," said John Coequyt, a senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit advocacy organization. "If they tried to make this type of shift in any other area of law enforcement, there would be a tremendous uproar."

The administration initiative is part of a $ 7.3 billion funding plan for the EPA, which is $ 500 million less than Congress approved for the current fiscal year. Whitman said most of the reductions would be achieved by eliminating projects that were added by Congress but that don't reflect the administration's priorities.

Apart from the new grant money for enforcement and information gathering, the budget includes $ 2.1 billion in grants to states for water infrastructure needs.

But overall spending on clean air and water programs, safe food and global pollution would be trimmed. Moreover, there is no new money in the budget to keep a Bush campaign pledge to provide $ 100 million annually to encourage environmental protection efforts by foreign governments in tropical areas.

The administration's increased deference to states was also conveyed by Interior's budget, which quadrupled the federal Land and Water Conservation grants to states to $ 450 million. At the same time, the Bush administration eliminated some federal grant initiatives, including the $ 50 million Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration program. Overall, the department was cut 3 percent, although its budget would still be 16 percent higher than in 2000.

The idea, Norton said, is to let states decide how to conserve their endangered species, restore their wetlands and preserve habitats for their migratory birds -- instead of telling them how to do it from Washington.

"President Bush offers more flexibility to meet the individual needs of states," she said.

The Interior budget included other hints of new directions in environmental policies. There is $ 60 million to provide incentives for private landowners to help preserve habitat and protect endangered species, a program Norton has described as a move away from heavy-handed top-down enforcement -- although environmentalists complained that the Agriculture Department's budget zeroed out similar programs for farmers. If Congress agrees, Interior would also spend nearly $ 30 million more on expanded "energy resource" activities, including planning for potential oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Environmentalists were pleased about one development in yesterday's budget: a 14 percent cut for the Army Corps of Engineers, which has been criticized over the last year for building environmentally destructive projects with few economic benefits. The administration would increase the agency's spending on environmental restoration and regulation, but it would not fund a single new Corps project or even a new study of a Corps project.



LOAD-DATE: April 10, 2001