James Laughlin
Editor
Back in 1996 I wrote a column on the possible impact of that year's elections. I suggested that a mixed-up Washington, with a Democratic president and a Republican Congress, might be the best thing for the water/wastewater industry. I based that comment on the belief that having opposing forces at work on Capitol Hill would create gridlock. I have always been a firm believer that no action is good action when it comes to Washington.
At the time, The Safe Drinking Water Act had just been signed into law and reauthorization of the Clean Water Act was stalled in Congress. Four years later, implementation of the SDWA has moved ahead, the CWA is still stalled and we've haven't seen much new environmental legislation out of Congress.
The action we have seen in the water environment mostly been the result of EPA working on the SDWA and the White House's Clean Water Action Plan.
For those of you who don't remember, in October 1997 Vice President Gore directed federal agencies to develop a Clean Water Initiative to strengthen water pollution control efforts. A multi-agency Action Plan was released in February 1998 listing more than 100 key actions. It focused on three main goals: protecting the public from waterborne health threats, more effective control of polluted runoff, and promotion of water quality protection on a watershed basis.
I view the Clean Water Action Plan as an end-run around Congress and its inability to renew the CWA. However, most of the key actions of the plan were items already in the system. As an example, work was well under way on the TMDL program before the Action Plan was developed, yet it was at the heart of a the plan.
I believe EPA rushed the TMDL rule through, in part, because of a fear that the next administration won't be so supportive of such environmental initiatives.
And that brings me to this year's elections.
What's going to happen is anybody's guess. I'm not a political pundit so I won't even try. But the outcome of the Presidential election could have a significant impact on the water/wastewater industry in the United States for the next four years.
What happens in Congress probably won't be that significant. Whether the Republicans retain a majority or not, the balance of power will be so close that no drastic changes are likely. The White House is a different story.
Bush is not noted for his support of the environment, while Gore has served as the point man for environmental initiatives coming out of the White House during the Clinton years. Any change would not be legislation, but rather in supervision of EPA. I believe that Gore would tend to encourage any action by EPA, while Bush possibly might revamp and/or de-emphasize the agency.
Bush's catch phrase has been voluntary compliance and less centralized control from Washington. I read that as less federal enforcement and fewer new rules if he were to win the election. It also might mean less money from the federal government for environmental programs. On the other hand, if Gore should win, things probably would stay pretty much the same. He and EPA Administrator Carol Browner are on the same side in many issues. Gore might push a little harder for environmental funding, however.
I don't know what all that means to folks in the water industry. If I were operating a municipal utility struggling to meet federal regulations, I might be inclined to root for Bush. If I were hoping for a little extra federal money to support my program, I might go with Gore. On the other hand, if I were an equipment manufacturer hoping to see my business grow, I might vote Democratic, but then again maybe I wouldn't.
