Why Regulatory Agencies Are Designed to Fail

"How often have you sat in a public meeting with a government representative at the front of the room responding to questions from the public with answers that make no sense? Maybe his answers are legally accurate (that is, they are doing what is required by law), but are they following the spirit of the law in involving members of the public in the decision-making process? Rarely does government engage the public as an equally or even as a partner. Have you ever wondered why it always seems to be this way? Have you ever asked why does the government do things the way it does?" 

We have a feeling a lot of you will be able to relate to that opening sentence of the Center for Health, Environment and Justice's review of retired EPA employee William Sanjour's new piece on how to reform environmental and public health agencies so that they, you know, actually protect the environment and public health.

Sanjour, who retired in 2001 after a 30-year stint with the Agency helping to write regulations, provides the valuable point of view of the insider. His suggestions are not what you might think. They are neither typically left or right. He wants to break EPA's authority up and give it less responsibility while increasing the involvement of citizens in enforcement. These are Sanjour's four basic remedies: 1) Agencies which enforce regulations should not write the regulations. 2) The revolving door should be shut. 3) Whistle blowers should be protected, encouraged and rewarded. 4) To the greatest extent feasible, those who the regulations are intended to protect should participate in writing and enforcing the regulations. 

Anyone who's been frustrated with the lack of action from either the EPA or TCEQ will appreciate his Belly-of-the-Beast perspective. If you think there's no sane way to go about regulating polluters and pollution, you really should read both Sanjour's diagnosis, and his prescription.