Environmental Work Case Study

In September, Charlie Savage, of the New York Times, wrote on the possible removal of funds from the United States Justice Department for their ligation efforts in assisting the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) with suing Superfund violators in court. Under the title, “E.P.A Threatens to Stop Funding Justice Department’s Environmental Work,” Savage attempts to explain the implications and reasoning behind revoking the Justice Department’s funding. According to Savage, the E.P.A. “pay[s] more than $20 million annually in recent years” to the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (p. 1). This staggering amount provides the Justice Department with salaries for lawyers and staff who conduct court cases against and investigate companies who have refused to pay for their polluted sites. Towards the end of the first page, Savage explains E.P.A. director Scott Pruitt’s relationship with the agency, and how that could cause a multitude of problems for environmental activists. Pruitt has long been a critic of the E.P.A., …show more content…
Both employees and Justice Department staff of the Environment and Natural Resources Division are aware that their staff will be unable to support the large workload “to fight pollution in the nation’s waterways, soil[,] and air” (p. 2). Savage includes the hope of Justice Department managers that the Justice Department may be able to compensate for the funds lost (p. 2). However, there is no guarantee the funds do exist. Also, the Justice Department spokesperson avoided the question over how the department would find the funding. Yet, the quote, from the Justice Department spokesperson, Savage inserts claims the department will continue “the important work on the nation’s Superfund sites” (p. 3). With this declaration, it causes one to wonder if other Environment and Natural Resources Division efforts will see