What a Trump or Harris presidency could mean for the EPA in New England

As the country grapples with record temperatures, catastrophic flooding and other effects of a changing climate, voters face a stark decision in the upcoming presidential election. President Biden has made climate change and environmental justice central to his administration's goals; the Democratic party's nominee, Vice President Harris, is expected to carry that legacy forward if elected.

In contrast, Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, has focused his environmental platform on increased drilling for oil and gas, while decreasing environmental regulations.

Much of the next president's policies will filter down to New England through its regional branch of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, and EPA employees are acutely aware of the difference that a Trump or Harris presidency will present.

Most current EPA employees must comply with the Hatch Act, which prohibits partisan political speech at work. But WBUR spoke to current and former EPA employees, as well as those affected by EPA policies, to see what they're expecting if Trump or Harris ascends to the presidency.

Here are four takeaways from those interviews.

If there’s one hallmark of the Biden-Harris EPA, it’s money.  Two pieces of legislation — the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act — are expected to send about a hundred billion dollars through the EPA for environmental projects.

"It's a huge amount of money," said David Cash, the regional administrator for the EPA in New England. "'Unprecedented' is absolutely the right word."

The EPA's New England office had distributed $1.85 billion from this legislation as of  July 31. The money is going toward efforts to remove lead pipes in Malden and clean up an old mill in Montague; buy electric school buses in New Britain, Connecticut; and convert an old copper mine in Strafford, Vermont to a solar farm, among other projects.

Political observers believe Harris, who cast the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, would likely continue the funding rollout if elected president.

"And if the administration changes, all of that could go away," said Matthew Tejada, a senior advisor to the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund. He led the EPA’s environmental justice office under the last three presidents. "Many of these programs, even if they're already walking out the door, they can be pulled back in."

Tejada said a second Trump administration could not retrieve money that's already spent. And it's unlikely that Trump would revoke money for EPA projects with broad appeal, like upgrades to water infrastructure.

But he expects money for environmental justice projects, like the Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program, could be cut. The program has given funding to nonprofits to install solar panels on multi-family homes and plant trees in urban areas, among other projects.

Tejada also said a second Trump administration would be prepared to act quickly.

"I think you will have, on day one, much more astute individuals showing up," he said. "I think a lot of the Inflation Reduction Act — which was so equity focused and really about climate change — I think all of that stuff is going to be on an immediate list."

Reducing emissions that cause climate change has been a priority in the Biden-Harris EPA, with programs like the $7 billion “Solar for All” initiative to expand solar power in low-income communities. In contrast, Trump’s environmental agenda focuses on decreasing regulations and increasing gas and oil production — his official platform includes the words "Drill, baby, drill" in all caps, and says increasing gas, oil and coal production would reduce energy costs and boost the economy. His first administration scrubbed climate change information from the EPA website.

Undine Kipka, an air permit specialist at the EPA’s New England office, served under the first Trump administration and said it was a "tough time" for EPA scientists.

"We felt like there were decisions being made without the advice and blessing of career scientists," she said. "We also felt like there was a culture of fear."

Kipka — also president of the local chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees, the biggest union representing EPA employees — said staffers' experience with the Trump administration led the union to insist on a scientific integrity clause in its new contract. The clause provides an appeals process for employees who face retaliation for promoting sound science.

"Hopefully that'll be enough to prevent poor decisions from being made and scientists from being fired or let go unnecessarily," she said. But "a labor contract is not a perfect solution."

Many scientists and environmental groups worry a second Trump administration will try to remove federal employees who resist its priorities.

"If a Trump administration comes back in, they're obviously going to go after a lot of rules. They're going to go after a lot of policies," said Tejada. "There's a lot of concern, of course, that they're going to go after the actual body of the civil service, actually go after officials, go after staff."

Toward the end of his first administration, Trump signed an executive order to make it easier to fire some federal employees. Kipka expects Trump would re-institute this order if elected. The Trump administration had argued it would bring more accountability to federal bureaucracy. But she said it would do the opposite.

"It could politicize the entire federal workforce, and that's a really dangerous thing, I think, for science and for EPA."

During the first debate of this year's presidential race, in June, Trump said he wanted "absolutely immaculate" clean water and "absolutely clean air." However, his first administration rolled back about 100 environmental rules, regulations and policies dealing with clean air, climate change, water and wildlife, according to a New York Times analysis.

Massachusetts, like most New England states, has its own regulations about air pollution, safe drinking water, wetlands and wildlife protection, which are often tougher than federal laws. The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act, for instance, protect land bordering wetlands, rivers and streams, and strictly regulate dredging and filling.

Such strict state regulations protect the New England environment from federal rollbacks to some extent, said Kyla Bennett, a former wetlands expert for the EPA's New England office, who now works for the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

"The problem is that pollution doesn't know political boundaries," she said. "With air quality, if you have neighboring states that don't have strong programs, it can really impact New England."

Examples of this from the first Trump administration are plentiful. For instance, the Trump EPA weakened Obama-era fuel economy and emission standards, and revised a rule to limit mercury in coal plant emissions.

In 2020, the Trump administration announced new rules regarding freshwater streams, pools and wetlands in the United States. The "Navigable Waters Protection Rule," as it's called, loosened regulations for dumping pesticides, fertilizers and other waste into waterways. Environmental groups quickly condemned the rule as a threat to ecosystems and public health, while farm and industry groups praised it as a relief from onerous Obama-era regulations.

The Biden EPA revised the rule, leaving some famers concerned the government was prioritizing wetlands over farmlands.

"There are some conditions where farmers are going to be restricted from using certain areas of their land," said Karen Schwalbe, executive director of the Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation. "There's one farmer who's actually concerned about losing almost half his growing area because there are small seasonal streams that go through his farm."

Other groups have complained about the Biden-Harris EPA adding too many environmental restrictions or rolling out new regulations — like PFAS drinking water rules — too quickly. The EPA’s priorities are unlikely to change if Harris is elected.

But, Schwalbe said, what farmers want most is consistency and a voice at the table.

"That's really what will keep farmers secure," she said. "If they don't know what's coming, they're going to be risk averse, and they're not going to necessarily be able to make a business decision that is going to keep them in production."