Uncovered Letters & Slashing Science Budgets

What We Can Do In Times Of Agency Disruption? Plus: Have You Received Your CCR?

Photo by The Climate Reality Project on Unsplash

I don’t have to say that there’s a lot going on right now….

In the case of protecting people from pollution, it’s not looking great. The upside? People have always been at the center of this movement. In every case I’ve worked on, it’s always been about curious, everyday folks asking good questions and pushing for change. That’s it.

Let’s get into the muck.

Letter Reveals Flawed Testing

After the February 2023 Norfolk Southern train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, and subsequent open burn of vinyl chloride railcars, many environmental groups raised issue about the possibility of elevated levels of dioxins, persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals that can cause cancer and other serious health problems.

Burning chlorinated chemicals like vinyl chloride, especially in uncontrolled conditions, is a perfect recipe for dioxin formation.

Now, an EPA letter shows how the agency greenlit Norfolk Southern’s removal of several key chemical compounds from their soil sampling plan, concealing the scope of dioxin contamination, according the Government Accountability Project, a watchdog group that helps defend and advocate on behalf of whistleblowers.

In the March 7, 2023, letter, just one day after Norfolk Southern contractor Arcadis released its Phase I Soil Sampling Plan, EPA updated that plan to add a directive to collect more baseline soil samples at locations heavily hit by the toxic plumes.

Baseline samples must come from unpolluted areas to ensure an accurate measurement of normal environmental conditions. Otherwise, the “baseline” is meaningless, making it impossible to evaluate the presence, concentration, or danger of contaminants and chemical detections above, at or below normal levels.

The letter, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), validates whistleblowers Stephen Petty and Scott Smith’s earlier sworn declarations that EPA failed to perform proper environmental sampling in East Palestine by downplaying dioxin and other chemical detections.

“EPA’s soil sampling strategy was never about finding the truth,” said GAP Senior Environmental Officer Leslie Pacey in a statement. “It was about negligently allowing flawed testing to support the false and deceptive Norfolk Southern narrative.”

Cuts To Independent Science At the EPA

Last week, the EPA announced plans to close its science research arm in a move critics say will significantly undermine protections for human and environmental health.

The Office of Research and Development (ORD) housed the independent scientists investigating toxic chemicals, climate change, smog, wildfires, indoor air contaminants, water pollution, watershed destruction, and drinking water pollutants. ORD conducted research in its in-house laboratories, funded extramural research at academic institutions and other organizations, and provided technical services in support of the agency’s mission.

One aspect of ORD’s work was producing scientific information on cancer and non-cancer health effects of chronic exposure to environmental contaminants from its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Local, state, and federal agencies use the information in IRIS.

In January 2025, EPA had 16,155 employees. Combined with voluntary retirements, separations, and other announced reductions in force, EPA will now continue its work with 12,448 employees. These cuts are expected to save taxpayers almost $750 million, according to the agency.

Kyla Bennett, director of science policy for the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), told NPR eliminating the ORD “will not only cripple EPA's ability to do its own research, but also to apply the research of other scientists. This [reduction in force], together with the slashing of travel and training budgets, will leave EPA flying blind and unable to use the best available science.”

To replace the work of ORD, EPA says it will create the Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions to “prioritize research and science more than ever before,” according to Administrator Lee Zeldin. The new office will be within the administrator’s office.

Moving researchers to what is essentially an in-house contract lab instead of an independent science research and development arm is certain to have ripple effects, including making it more difficult for EPA to issue new standards for water pollutants, toxic chemicals, and more.

In a new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, the org claims that since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term cuts to research funding, dismissals of federal scientists and other “attacks on science” are happening at a rate far exceeding that of his first term.

Gutting Scientific Expertise

The Trump administration’s second term has seen vast, disorderly reductions in the federal workforce, with more than 120,000 employees eliminated in the first 6 months of 2025. This unprecedented slashing—estimated to be nearly 7 times greater in the first quarter of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024—targets science-focused agencies through various methods such as mass firings of probationary employees, reassignments, reductions in force, and even retaliatory dismissals.

Key science agencies have experienced significant staff cuts: the Department of Health and Human Services by 24 percent, the Department of Energy (DOE) by 13 percent, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by 11 percent, and the Environmental Protection Agency by 5 percent.

A notable number of employees in these agencies are categorized as being in “scientific occupations,” including nearly half of the employees in NOAA and EPA. These reductions have halted critical government programs, undermining the federal government’s ability to provide essential protections, oversight, and science-based services to the US public, particularly harming disadvantaged communities.

Action Doesn’t Always Come From Agencies

I like to remind people that it was a Republican, President Richard Milhous Nixon, who created the Environmental Protection Agency.

When Nixon created the agency, he wasn’t necessarily an environmentalist: he was responding to huge public outcry over environmental issues. More than 20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day event in April 1970, which sent a strong message to government. By December of that same year, Congress established the EPA to help tackle these issues.

The conversation about protecting the environment began in earnest in the 1960s. Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring was published in 1962, calling out the chemical industry. The Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, choking with chemicals, burst into flames in 1969.

Images really can tell a thousand words and dramatic photos made headlines. A Time magazine article described the river as so saturated with industrial waste and sewage that it “oozed rather than flowed.”

That sight sparked major reforms and a newfound need for environmental action, which included the passage of the Clean Water Act and the creation of state and federal environmental protection agencies.

When I talk about agency failures or missteps, I guess I want to put these orgs into context. These agencies tasked with protecting us were always an experiment of sorts, a way to try to reign in corporate misdeeds and out-of-control pollution.

Have they been successful? Let’s take the case of Hoosick Falls, New York.

Officials there waited more than a year to warn residents about the tainted drinking water and even longer to test blood levels of locals. While the water in Hoosick Falls was tainted by PFOA from industry, the contamination was not announced as part of a federal testing program.

One concerned citizen—Michael Hickey, whose father worked at the local plastics plant and died of kidney cancer in 2013—paid out of his own pocket for water tests, which detected PFOA at levels well above the EPA’s health advisory. Just like in Flint (and so many other towns), local authorities downplayed the threat, but community members kept making noise.

In December 2015, the EPA finally issued a warning to residents not to drink or cook with the water. By June of 2016 residents of Hoosick Falls stormed the state capitol, demanding answers, bio-monitoring for their health problems, and cleanup. Children, moms, and grandparents marched with signs and their blood contamination levels scrawled on their bodies, demanding action.

Fast forward to July 2025. About a decade after the EPA issued its warning. Chemical maker DuPont has agreed to a $27 million settlement to resolve a lawsuit over the village’s water supply.

The deal was announced by lawyers representing residents of Hoosick Falls, just as the case was headed to trial in federal court. The settlement brings the total recovered in the class action suit brought in 2016 to more than $90 million.

Three other companies—Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, Honeywell International and 3M—settled for a total of more than $65 million in 2021. DuPont was the last remaining defendant.

So yes, the EPA was part of this case, but it did not protect the people of Hoosick Falls from this nightmare in the first place. We wrote earlier this year about how this village is rebuilding its water infrastructure and working toward having a clean water source for all.

In a recent LIVE, I talked about how agencies have never been as powerful as the people.

It’s Water Report Time!

Do you know what toxins are in your water? Knowledge is power.

The first step is to get a copy of your Consumer Confidence Report CCR (sometimes called a Water Quality Report) from your water company. This annual report is provided to customers by July 1 each year and will give you details about contaminants that have been detected in your water system. It should come in the mail with your water bill. If you pay your bill online, you should be able to go directly to the water utility’s website and get a copy or request a downloadable PDF.

If you don’t pay your own water bill because you live in an apartment, condo, or rental property or you get your water from a private ground water well, you don’t receive a CCR. Renters can contact their building manager or search online for your water utility website to find it.

Learn more about how to read your report here.

---

Keep the conversation flowing in the comments below. Have you received help from a regulatory agency or still waiting for someone to call you back?