Oppose EPA budget cuts


This Environmental Protection Agency was formulated in 1970. The purpose of the agency was, and continues to be, the protection of the public and the environment.

The agency depends on scientific research, which allows monitoring of systems including water, air and standards for toxic substances.

The EPA cannot carry out its mandate without adequate funding. It must also maintain neutrality because it is subject to criticism and calls from industry to alter its mission. Industry’s main goal is to increase its coffers. Rules that protect the public’s interest are frequently in opposition to that goal.

The current administration has done its best to keep the agency from doing its job. It has banned language that is commonly used for description in documents being prepared for next year’s budget; terms like “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “evidence-based,” and “science-based.” It has done its best to silence scientists. At the same time, Scott Pruitt has laid off personnel and cut the budget, all the while stating that he wants to “increase proficiency.”


It is obvious that the Trump administration wants to eliminate any agency that would get in the way of industrial growth and monetary advancement.

Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King should oppose any budget cuts to the EPA. The environment must come before industry profits. The public relies on safeguards that only the EPA provides. America needs a fully-funded, freely-operating EPA.

Nancy Gilbert, Durham

  • CLibbey

    I think some independent thinkers should investigate the thousands of government research grants made for useless projects, starting with Jackson Lab.