From arsenic to wetlands, the Bush administration is quietly reshaping the environmental laws that safeguard our air and water. Critics contend that the administration is utilizing a range of back-door regulatory revisions, including tax breaks and legal loopholes for polluters, without-a-trace “sue and settle” tactics that culminate in sweetheart deals for industry, and budget cuts to environmental enforcement agencies.

The cumulative effect is a rewriting of the rules, subtle in tone but perhaps bold in consequence. While critics acknowledge that proving a premeditated plan is next to impossible, the proof may be in the pudding.

• The 2004 budget shifts 79% of the Superfund financial burden from polluters to taxpayers.
  
  
• Under a new law, power plants and refineries are allowed to increase smog and soot-forming emissions.
  
  
• The administration-backed House energy bill has $19 billion in additional tax breaks for oil and nuclear.
  
  
• Enforcement actions and fines are down by 30% over the previous administration.
  
  
• 200 EPA monitoring and civil enforcement positions were eliminated between 2001 and 2003.
  
  
• A new report found that environmental policy changes are routinely announced on Friday evenings or around major holidays – precisely when the media and the public are focused elsewhere.

Critics wonder if administration officials are creating an end-run around Congress – and the public. Early in its tenure, the Bush White House bore the brunt of public outcry over its support of boosting arsenic levels in drinking water – and quickly backtracked. A poll taken last month affirms that 47% of Americans think the environment is getting worse, compared to 38% in March of 2002.

Is the administration striking the proper balance between preserving the environment and promoting economic prosperity? Can industry be counted on to self-police? What political pressure can citizens leverage to protect public health and the environment?