EPA proposed budget cut and its detrimental effects

by Dina Lopez

The most important issues at hand with the new Trump administration have been at odds with both Republican and Democratic parties. The recent budget proposal has been said to cut the United States Environmental Protection Agency regardless of its significant contribution to everyday life. The 31% budget cut from Environmental Protection Agency funding is very detrimental to jobs, research and other factors that contribute to insure life.

By minimizing the budget, the Trump administration seems to cut back on important issues such as programs that regulate air pollution and water pollution on a national level. In addition, jobs that were created to lower health risks will be terminated which would increase negative health risk significantly. Moreover, in in the very public case of Flynt, Michigan where the residents were exposed to lead poisoning in their water is a detrimental effect which the EPA has worked closely with to help its detrimental outcomes. In addition to preventative action which is provided by EPA funding, and post actions such as providing clean water for those affected by this great injustice is part of the funding as well. This is a great example of why the budget cut proposed would be gravely consequential. If we minimize the budget for monitoring the conditions of drinking water, it could create an epidemic where health conditions everywhere could be significantly affected.

The case of Flynt Michigan is a micro example of the consequences that can occur if programs such as the EPA could not continue to help the environment to a certain extent. The negative health outcomes cost could easily outweigh the cost of program, by minimizing health risk. Furthermore, the EPA has also took on a cleaner water initiative that has helped wetlands, which clean air pollution. The wetlands are a great source that provides cleaner air and naturally does the job which is more cost effective. By not continuing the conservation of this great resource it could create more costly issues in the long run. The EPA funds programs that helps prevent the human population to chemical exposure which could have been correlated to cancer development. Furthermore, those who are responsible for such exposure are identified through programs funded by EPA in order to fine them. Losing such funding could create less accountability for those responsible for polluting and harming others. This would deregulate the system that is in place in order to prevent such crimes. Furthermore, the importance of wetlands and its great part in the ecosystem. The wetlands could be lost if measures are not taken to maintain them in their natural state. There are of course other ecosystems that can be significantly harmed are natural environments such as the forest, farmlands, and Rangelands. These environments create a magnitude of benefits for the environment that could save more money than what is spent on saving them. In addition  there are other environmental aspects that should be thought as top national priority such as the recent severe draft, which was due to climate change.

None of these warning signs should go unnoticed and cutting the funding completely disregards the importance of such essential programs. By continuing the funding that has been a great part of the environmental benefits will help lower health hazards and lower cost of preventable negative health outcomes. The projected budget decrease in this program is not only counterproductive but it also creates a great risk to health of many individuals. Creating this program was a step in the right direction but the proposed budget imposes on this great resource. Chronic diseases have been linked to air pollution and water pollution such as cancer. Due to the negative outcomes that can be avoided a budget cut should not be the next step taken. By depleting a source that helps all who breathe and need to survive, we will create a detrimental environment for future generations. The proposed budget cut on the Environmental Protection Association is a great topic to continue to read and learn about in order to try to get others involved to stop this tragedy. The funding cuts have also shown to be economically unnecessary due to the low cost economic gain from these resources when they are thriving. 


Works Cited

Atlantic, Christine Todd Whitman The. “I Ran George W. Bush’s EPA – and Trump’s Cuts to the Agency Would Endanger Lives.” Reader Supported News. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 May 2017

Bee, Andrea TuttleSpecial to The. “Protecting California’s natural lands is key to combating climate change.” Sacbee. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 May 2017.

Tabuchi, Hiroko. “What’s at Stake in Trump’s Proposed E.P.A. Cuts.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Apr. 2017. Web. 22 May 2017.