Letters: Firings at the US EPA place our air, water and health in peril

Chicago Tribune

24-03-2025

I am an environmental scientist who enforces the Clean Water Act as part of my position with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Scientists like me inspect facilities that discharge pollutants into waterways. If they are discharging without the proper National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or over the limits set by their permit, we take action and make them correct their operations.
I remember how the Chicago River used to smell, and I remember the fires on the Cuyahoga River in Ohio. We can't forget how far we have come, but I'm worried how quickly all our hard work will be erased without proper staffing levels.
The new administration's actions have reached my branch. Five of our newest inspectors were just fired. They were top of their class, and they were motivated and quality individuals. Several were replacing retirees. Now we will be severely shorthanded to do our mission for the American people.
I have never worked at any job as hard as I do at the EPA. And I know of no one at the EPA who doesn't work hard. Whether at home or the office, we never have a lack of work to do.
To target our inspections, we use self-reported data from the companies themselves. The NPDES permits require companies to submit their compliance data every month. This data is available to the public in a database called ECHO — Enforcement and Compliance History Online.
If you think that shrinking the government by firing people who work to keep our country's waters clean is the right way for our country to go, you should go on ECHO, play around with some of the filters and see how many facilities are polluting the waterways. Or the air. Or the land. You will see that there is a lot of work to do.
These firings were not inconsequential. Right now, I manage 15 cases with about 20 new inspections this year. If each of those fired staffers conducted only 10 inspections after a year of working for the EPA (typical amount), that is 50 facilities that will not be addressed — each year! And that is just in water enforcement. Then there are the other firings in other programs (air and land). And this is happening to EPA regional offices throughout the country, with little end in sight.
Please call and email your congressional representatives and let them know that we need a fully staffed EPA, so that you're not the only one monitoring the ECHO database.
— Joan Rogers, Environmental Protection Agency, member, AFGE Local 704, Chicago
Stewardship of the earth
Thanks for the article 'EPA boss aims to roll back climate rules, regulations' (in print March 13). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency leader Lee Zeldin spoke of rolling back 31 EPA rules, plans and regulations. He said the move will drive 'a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.' His language suggests those promoting climate action are a cult.
Climate change is not a religion, but addressing the consequences of it is a part of many mainstream religions. For Catholics, our most recent three popes have spoken of this responsibility. In addition, for decades, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has recognized the consensus science that climate change and its related warming are primarily caused by human activity.
As Catholics, we are taught we have a moral obligation to be better stewards of God's gifts, including the natural world. It's called care for creation. Warming caused by fossil fuel emissions harms the natural world and people, especially the poor and future generations. Acting to mitigate climate change consequences is part of that calling to protect people and the planet.
Zeldin's attempt to engineer a sweeping rollback of environmental rules that will enable unfettered fossil fuel development, and do so with less regulation of harmful pollutants, is incompatible with Catholic social teaching and care for creation.
— Andy Panelli, Creation Care Ministry, St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, Orland Hills
Social Security closures
Opinions such as letter writer Robert Smith's ('Finding cost savings,' March 19), extolling the virtues of the closure of Social Security offices, are vastly uninformed. Anybody who thinks that this action will make Social Security more efficient has never cared for an elderly person in need of services.
About five years ago, I tried to help my father, who was in his 90s, obtain some help from Social Security. First, we tried the phone, but his hearing was so bad he couldn't understand what was being said. They said that they couldn't talk to me, so I decided to go over to the Social Security office to get it resolved. I arrived when the doors opened and waited about an hour before my number was called. After explaining that I had power of attorney and was trying to assist my father, I was told that Social Security does not recognize POAs and that my father would have to come to the office in person.
So, I took another day and dragged my poor father to the local office, where he sat in agony on a hard, plastic chair for a couple of hours until he was seen.
The new identification requirements, which will require in-person visits if identity cannot be verified online, will make it that much busier at whatever offices remain. Our population is aging, and the bureaucrats who are making these decisions seem oblivious to the needs/difficulties of the elderly. Many older people do not have a computer or cannot use them efficiently if they do exist. Hearing and vision are often in decline, and other physical ailments may make it difficult for them to travel. Travel may also require hiring someone (if they can afford it) or finding a friend or relative who is willing to drive them. If that friend or relative is working, they may have to take time off to help.
Some experts believe that cutting personnel at Social Security will hasten the demise of the whole system. Perhaps that is the real goal of these cuts — to privatize Social Security.
Keep in mind that the story I just told happened long before they began making cuts and changing rules.
— Eileen Wilwers, McHenry
Risking nuclear war
On March 8, my husband and I arrived home from a 32-day trip to Japan, the Philippines and other islands. We were retracing the steps his father took in World War II. After learning about and seeing the destruction and loss of life that took place in these countries, I was very troubled by the Tribune's excellent opinion piece on President Donald Trump's foreign policies ('Trump's foreign policies have a nuclear impact on US credibility abroad,' March 17).
My husband's father, John Kinkley, left high school early, like so many others did, to fight for his country and world peace. He was injured on the ninth day of the Battle of Okinawa with shrapnel in his leg and was shipped to a hospital. Allied forces overwhelmingly won that battle, but more than 150,000 people lost their lives, and many thousands more were wounded in just under three months.
While Hiroshima is thriving today, a visit to the Peace Memorial will remind anyone of the reality that happened there in 1945. The museum is filled with horrific photos of burned adults and children and ruins. An amazing exhibit of before and after views of the bombed site with a simulated mushroom cloud shows how quickly everything happened. Outside is the Peace Flame, lit in 1964, which will burn continuously 'until all nuclear bombs on the planet are destroyed and the planet is free from the threat of nuclear annihilation.'
Please, Mr. Trump, quit threatening to use nuclear weapons and warning of World War III. Let's take a moment to slow down and consider the consequences. With other countries developing nuclear weapons also, America cannot afford to be making enemies.
Cathlin Buckingham Poronsky was spot-on in her March 18 letter ('Failing to recall history'), quoting philosopher George Santayana: 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'
— Marianne Kinkley, Wheaton
This Christian approves
A Tribune reader asked for the opinion of Christians with regards to Elon Musk ('Do Christians approve?' March 19).
I was a manager for much of my work life. I hired a number of single moms. I never asked them about their personal life. I just wanted to know if they could do the job.
Musk was not hired to pastor a church or run a counseling center. He was hired to find waste and fraud in our government. He seems to be doing a very good job at that. He is advising the president but not in matters of marriage or reproduction.
I am only one Christian, but I am happy with the work Musk is doing here.
— Larry Craig, Wilmette
Where is Christian outcry?
To expand upon letter writer Patti Hodge's comments, do Christians approve when the first acts of our leader and his henchman, Elon Musk, are to withdraw humanitarian aid to the world's neediest people? Jesus made clear that to feed, clothe, welcome and care for the needy was to care for him, and in the last verses of Matthew 25, he sent packing the wealthy men who failed to do so. He also made clear his disdain for the wealthy and their low chance of making it to heaven.
Yet Christianity has become so debased in this country that few so-called Christian leaders have called out President Donald Trump and Musk's defiance of Christian values. The pope and, in Congress, a Jew, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, have decried our leaders' lack of humanity. Recently, Jewish Voice for Peace members occupied the lobby of Trump Tower in New York. Where were Christian voices for peace?
As an American Protestant, I'm ashamed of our silence.
— M. Wright, Evanston
Qualifications matter
I'd like to respond as a fellow Christian to the letter from Anne Krick of Warrenville ('A Christian perspective,' March 18) and explain another side. President Donald Trump's 'war' is not on diversity, equity and inclusion, per se, but on how it is applied. DEI should be about opportunity. I think we can all agree no one should be denied a position because of their race, etc.
This is the Christian way. But it also follows that no one should be favored or hired because of their race, etc. All that should matter is: Are they qualified?
— Mike Miskiewicz, Glen Ellyn
Lack of DEI definition
The current anti-diversity, equity and inclusion initiative perpetrated by the federal government suffers from lack of definition, and consequently, we all suffer from this lack of definition.
The government is taking a broad and non-nuanced approach toward DEI that seems to be fueled by the fear of relinquishing power and dominance, tinged with a bit of racism. It's difficult to see how deleting pages on a government website about exceptional African Americans or Native Americans in the military, eliminating clubs that support minorities as they navigate college or military school, or eliminating a program for music students to travel to Washington to perform with one of the country's greatest musical ensembles, can be either threatening or harmful.
What is harmful is trying to erase history or eliminate the chance for people of all races and ethnic groups, including white people, to learn about the contribution of all Americans to this great country. Why would anyone want to negate or ignore courageous contributions, some made with great sacrifice, to our country? Why would anyone want to destroy the chance for students to experience the best of our country? It seems more mean-spirited than patriotic.
As students of the true and full history of our country know, this country has always been diverse, and that diversity has helped make this country strong. To ignore this is to pretend that some individuals' accomplishments never existed. I can't imagine that this is truly the government's goal.
The federal government needs to be more specific about how it define diversity, equity and inclusion so that precious and important history and programs are not lost to all our children.
— Icy Cade-Bell, Tinley Park
Weak-kneed Republicans
For nearly 250 years, Americans have shown the courage to put their very lives on the line to create, maintain and perpetuate our sacred democracy.
For the past 10 years, we've watched our elected Republican officials bend the knee to Donald Trump. It's shameful to watch and horrifying to imagine where this is heading. In recent days, I've learned what it must be like for Russians under another felonious guy who imagines he is a czar. Amazingly, Trump sees fit to bend his knee to the crime-ridden czar rather than show strength and courage by supporting Ukraine.
No one is asking these weak-kneed Republicans to put their lives on the line as we ask our military to do. No, we're just asking them to show some courage and show some leg strength by standing tall and saying, 'No!' They may lose their position but not their lives. And, unlike the thousands of civil servants being let go, they are likely to find work and by doing so perform an actual service to our country, something they are currently failing to do.
Are there any courageous Republicans left, or have they all gone MAGA and become more interested in following than leading?
This is not a time for weak-kneed politicians! We need leaders.
— John S. Strauss, Campton Hills
No longer a 'paper tiger'
Regarding Daniel DePetris' column ('President Donald Trump goes to war in Yemen,' March 18) on President Donald Trump's authorization of airstrikes against Houthi positions, DePetris fails to outline an alternative plan to stop these terrorist attacks.
While I am no fan of Trump, Joe Biden as president allowed the U.S. to become the 'paper tiger' of the West and sent a message to Iran, the supplier of weapons to the Houthis, that it need not fear reprisal for unprovoked attacks on global shipping and the U.S. military.
Will the terrorist attacks stop? Probably not. But at least there will be no further assumptions that future attacks will not be answered by the U.S.
'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'