Standing Watch

Abolishing EPA would be bad news for local marinas, fisheries

Funding from federal agency benefits anglers and boaters.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Anglers and boaters do not need the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), right? What do federal administrators know about local boating and fishing issues?

This is the spirit of a current proposal to eliminate the EPA, with at least one federal legislator claiming the management of environmental issues are best left to local states, sans support from Washington, D.C.

Of course there are many EPA-backed or supported programs benefiting anglers and boaters, so perhaps an all out ban of the federal agency might be too much too soon. Completely ridding ourselves of the EPA because its challengers and skeptics argue the agency’s policies are one-sized-fits-all and, at times, overbearing might not be the most viable long-term solution.

The EPA is certainly not infallible, but certainly a middle ground could be found. There must be some way to balance federal oversight of environmental protections with state or local level management of its lands and waters. Federal oversight and state management of environmental policies do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Nonetheless a representative from Florida recently proposed doing away with the EPA entirely.

H.R. 861 – Abolish the EPA

The move to permanently do away with the EPA, which was created by Pres. Richard Nixon in 1970, is currently the focus of House Resolution 861 (H.R. 861), which was introduced by Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz on Feb. 3. His three co-sponsors – Reps. Barry Loudermilk, Thomas Massie and Steven Palazzo – are from Georgia, Kentucky and Mississippi, respectively.

The quartet of Republican lawmakers pushing H.R. 861 claim abolishing the EPA supports states’ rights. H.R. 861, if passed and signed into law, would eliminate the EPA entirely by Dec. 31, 2018.

Gaetz, in a live video posted on his Facebook page, said federal programs are one-sized-fits-all and have failed states.

“For six years in the (state) legislature, I had a front row seat to the failures of the federal government in protecting the environment. The question isn’t whether to protect the environment. The question is who is better equipped to actually do that,” Gaetz said in a Facebook Live video produced for his constituents.

The freshman legislator from the Florida Panhandle said his bill, while proposing to do away with the EPA, would not abolish federal protections for clean water or clean air.

“I got a lot of questions from folks on social media and email asking whether or not the abolition of the EPA would mean that we wouldn’t have clean water or clean air. That’s simply not true,” Gaetz said in his video message.

Gaetz positioned himself as a “conservationist at heart” who believes environmental programs should be decided at the local level, not Washington, D.C.

“I am a conservationist at heart. I think that as a conservative every once in a while you should want to conserve something. It’s one of the reasons why as a state legislator, I voted to secure more than a billion dollars in funding for our Everglades, to be able to restore water flow and habitats and environment for some of Earth’s most special creatures and one of the great areas of biodiversity that we have,” Gaetz said.

Interestingly enough the legislation included a provision for state-federal partnership to restore the Florida Everglades.

The introduction of H.R. 861 was also preceded by a request from a St. Petersburg, Florida lawmaker to have the EPA investigate recent deaths of nearly two-dozen pelicans in Tampa Bay.

Pres. Donald J. Trump’s administration, in a separate move, announced a series of executive orders would be issued to reshape the EPA. Details of what changes would be included within each order was not made available.

EPA and California

Abolishing the EPA could have serious repercussions in California. Just last year the EPA invested $182 million in California to fund clean drinking water, wastewater infrastructure and water pollution reduction programs.

California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) receives grant funding from the EPA. The DTSC in turn uses the grant funds to implement copper reduction programs at local harbors and marinas.

State projects, aimed at promoting marine uses of clean diesel engines, were also eligible for EPA grant funding.

Beyond funding the EPA also establishes and regulates marine engine standards, which helps protect water quality.

In 2014 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and EPA worked with California agencies to restrict use of an herbicide threatening endangered salmon and steelhead trout.

Two years earlier the EPA prohibited any vessel from discharging vessel sewage into California’s marine waters.

“Even treated sewage can contain pathogens, nutrients and other contaminants that affect human and environmental health, and economic productivity. Prohibiting large vessel sewage discharges provides additional protection of California’s marine water quality,” EPA staff stated in the March 2012 regulation.

How would these programs be affected by abolition of the EPA? Would California be able to fund its environmental programs or grants on its own? Would states in general not have any access to federal funds to assist in well-intentioned public policies? These questions (and potentially others) must be fully vetted before determining the fate of the EPA.

House Committee Hearing: States’ Rights vs. EPA

Of course the EPA’s involvement with California and other states has been not always been praised. In fact publications such as The Hill, Wall Street Journal, Fox News and The Federalist Papers claimed the EPA either caused California’s historic drought or did not assist the state’s farmers who were in dire need of assistance in light of severe water shortages.

In September 2015 the House of Representatives’ Committee on Natural Resources held a public hearing to address allegations of overreaching federal policies preventing the governors of Montana, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming from managing their respective energy, land and water resources amidst severe drought conditions.

“States have significant responsibilities for the condition of land, air, forest, wildlife, and water resources, as well as energy and mineral development with their borders. These responsibilities promote and perfect the development of local expertise that cannot be replicated by federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.,” Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) stated during the hearing. “Yet, the federal government frequently ignores such expertise, opting for a one-size-fits-all approach to regulation, and gives short-shrift to the states’ own regulatory actions.”

A hearing memo stated federal mismanagement of certain lands resulted in an increase of invasive species and catastrophic fires.

“Long-term federal mismanagement of Western national forests has led to overgrowth, an alarming increase rise in invasive species, and proliferating annual catastrophic fires,” the hearing memo stated.

Some states allege federal regulations do not promote partnerships with stage agencies and increase litigation activity.

“Federal over-regulation represents an ongoing threat to western states, as it has diminished federal-state partnerships, and led to increasingly harmful regulatory decisions and a proliferation of litigation that adversely impact the states’ statutorily-defined jurisdictional roles and economies,” the hearing memo continued.

The memo also acknowledged tension between federal oversight, and states’ rights has existed since the nation’s founding.

“Since the founding of the United States, there has been an inherent tension between the role of the federal government and the states,” the hearing memo stated.

One example cited in the hearing memo of federal overregulation was a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) decision to regulate fracking on federal and Native American lands. States argued the federal decision did not factor in input from local experts and state regulations already in place.

BLM officials, however, stated the final rule was complementary to state regulations and was based upon substantial public input. More than 1.5 million comments were submitted during a 210-day public comment period, according to the final rule.

“The BLM reviewed and analyzed these comments based on thoughtful analysis and robust dialogue, which resulted in a rule that is more protective than the previous proposed rules and current regulations,” the final rule stated. “It also strengthens oversight and provides the public with more information than is currently available, while recognizing state and tribal authorities and not imposing undue delays, costs, and procedures on operators.”

Federal officials stated its final rule would protect water supplies and ensure fracking operations were managed “in an environmentally responsible way.”

The final rule also required fracking operators to “provide public disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids.”

Share This:

4 thoughts on “Abolishing EPA would be bad news for local marinas, fisheries

  • Chris C

    The EPA is out of control. Regulations benefit special interest groups who obtain most grant money. Environmentalist are just like rest of liberal groups. Want someone else to pay for their agenda.

  • Dan Malnic

    In response to one reader’s comment that the “EPA is out of control”, is a typical knee-jerk reaction of a blanket statement that takes a “broad brush” approach to the issues without taking anything into consideration. Instead, one should take into consideration of what are the ramifications if the EPA were completely abolished. First, I would site some of the examples of the benefits that the EPA Abolishment article pointed out that a state-run agency would have more difficulty enacting on it’s own, let alone the difficulties of doing so with strained state budgets, such as California’s. A good example of that is the EPA investment in 2016 of $182 million to help fund clean drinking water, wastewater infrastructure and water pollution programs. You really think the California State Legislature could afford to pass that on to the taxpayers? Shut your eyes and think of Christmas if you think that’s possible. The article also points out the ability of the EPA to partner with national agencies such as the case in 2014 when the EPA and the NOAA ( a federal agency) worked together WITH California agencies to restrict the use of an herbicide threatening endangered salmon and steelhead trout.
    My family and I experienced first hand of what our environment was like in the early 70’s growing up in Southern California and the changes our surrounding environment went through starting from when my relatives first settled in the San Gabriel Valley in 1900 to get started in the then-booming citrus business to the present day. There was no smog in 1900. But by the time the 70’s came about, it was a completely different story. I grew up in the town of Glendora back then and that very town was considered one of the worst in air quality in all of Southern California. Often times, our grade schools would release us @ Noon to go home when the air quality would reach Stage 2 smog alert levels. I still vividly remember how your eyes would sting and your throat would burn from the high smog levels. Many thanks to the Nixon Administration’s help in forming the EPA in 1970 and the AQMD’s involvement (Air Quality Management District) that helped set regulatory actions such requiring vehicles to have catalytic converters installed to help remove harmful omissions. What a difference its been since then on how bad it use to be verses how much better the air is now in So. Calif. I also remember the terrible issues we had with chemicals such as DDT and its after-effects that we don’t have to experience anymore. That was an ecological nightmare back then. Growing up in So. Calif. has allowed me to enjoy the wilderness areas around us and to be blessed with the deep-sea fishing opportunities that I’ve enjoyed for over 40 years and continue to do so. I think the real solution in not abolishing the EPA, but rather to refine it by giving states more “room at the table” to work in conjunction with agencies such as the EPA to help better and preserve the environment for us and our future generations. In the end, I don’t want my son to say to me someday “Hey dad, tell me again what it was like when you could catch Bluefin and Yellow fin tuna off the coast of California?” Let’s not get to that scenario.

    • S. Maxwell

      Well stated Dan . . . especially today, after reading Scott Pruitt’s emails (finally made public after a two-year lawsuit) revealing his chummy relationship with the billionaire Koch brothers and fossil fuel industry. Whether liberal or conservative, Joe Public needs to wake up and pressure those in power to represent, “We The People,” not special interest groups/industries.

  • Rhonda Butler

    Fisher woman. men….fished most of my life…arch conservative fence sitting republican. Worked with very
    sensable men . Please read more before jumping to conclusions.



Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Standing Watch/Take Action

In this section you will find resources and supplemental information on what you can do to Take Action. Submit additional information or tips on this issue to

Friction between federal agencies and states will continue to exist. Easing such friction is not necessarily a good thing. Could the relationship between federal agencies and state leaders be improved? Certainly. Abolishing agencies such as the EPA, however, falls short of improving federal-state relations. Perhaps legislators can seek alternative measures to balance states’ rights with federal oversight and assistance.

H.R. 861 is still in its infancy. The proposal, which observers believe will not pass if it ever reaches a vote, was referred to committee shortly after Gaetz introduced the bill.

Nonetheless changes to the EPA could still be in store in light of a series of executive orders Trump expects to issue for the agency.

Please contact the following legislators and agency representatives and let them know your position on the EPA and Trump’s planned executive orders:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Christopher Ramig


Rep. Matt Gaetz (Florida)


850-479-1183 (Legislative Director)

Twitter: @Rep_Matt_Gaetz

Sen. Dianne Feinstein


Twitter: @SenFeinstein

Sen. Kamala Harris

213-894-5000, 619-239-3884

Twitter: @KamalaHarris

Rep. Ted Lieu (Los Angeles)

323-651-1040, 202-225-3976, 310-321-7664

Twitter: @TedLieu

Rep. Alan Lowenthal (Long Beach)

562-436-3828, 202-225-7924

Twitter: @RepLowenthall

Rep. Scott Peters (San Diego)

858-455-5550, 202-225-0508

Twitter: @RepScottPeters

Rep. Juan Vargas (San Diego)

619-422-5963, 202-225-8045

Twitter: @RepJuanVargas

Rep. Darrell Issa (Oceanside/Dana Point)

949-281-2449, 760-599-5000, 202-225-3906

Twitter: @DarrellIssa

Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (Newport Beach/Huntington Beach)

714-960-6483, 202-225-2415

Twitter: @DanaRohrbacher

Rep. Julia Brownley (Channel Islands/Ventura)

805-379-1779, 202-225-5811

Twitter: @JuliaBrownley26

Gov. Jerry Brown (California)


Twitter: @JerryBrownGov

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom


Twitter: @GavinNewsom