EPA cuts threaten Florida’s waters

Florida’s drinking water, as well as its waterways and beaches, could suffer from President Donald Trump’s push to slash spending at the Environmental Protection Agency. Congress needs to say no.

Federal help to fight water pollution in Florida is among potential casualties of Trump’s pledge to cut the EPA’s $8 billion budget by 30 percent.

A new report from the Environmental Defense Fund warns that Trump’s proposed cuts could cost Florida millions used to combat pollution that fouls beaches, pollutes lakes and rivers and threatens drinking water supplies.

During the past five years, Florida benefited from about $600 million in EPA grants that fund efforts such as cleaning up or preventing water pollution. But if Trump’s budget cuts had been in effect, the state would have received less than half of that, according to the report from the environmental advocacy group.

Losing that money would put Florida’s tourist-attracting waterways and beaches at risk, as well as the drinking water the state’s growing population needs.

When Congress considers budget measures in September, it should reject the president’s proposed deep cuts to the federal agency that helps protect Florida’s waters.

Trump’s cuts could mean ending the pollution-fighting National Estuary Program at a time when Florida is trying to avoid more toxic algae blooms along the coast.

Last year, pollution-fueled algae blooms produced a foul-smelling, green ooze that spread across waterways near Stuart — making waters unsafe for fishing and swimming — and scared away tourists to boot. Trump’s proposed cuts could do away with the EPA program that during the past five years has directed nearly $12 million in help to Florida’s estuaries, according to the Environmental Defense Fund report.

The cuts could also hamper efforts to make sure waters off Florida’s beaches are safe for swimming. The state received nearly $3 million in federal funding during the past five years to test for fecal matter and other pollutants, according to the report.

The EPA has been a popular target for Trump and other Republicans who complain that the federal agency’s pollution-fighting regulations hamper businesses and stifle job creation. Long before running for office, Trump in 2011 tweeted that the EPA was, “an impediment to both growth and jobs.”

During the campaign, Trump singled out the department that enforces environmental regulations as an example of something he would get rid of “in almost every form.”

“We’re going to have little tidbits left, but we’re going to take a tremendous amount out,” Trump said during the March 4, 2016 presidential debate in Detroit.

Trump picked an EPA administrator, former Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, who had long fought the regulatory agency he now oversees. Also, Pruitt has questioned whether man-made pollution is the primary cause of climate change.

Under Pruitt, the EPA has rolled back pollution limits on power plants and is seeking to rein in water pollution regulations.

In May, Pruitt defended the president’s proposed budget cutbacks as an effort that “respects the American taxpayer” while still enabling the EPA to support its “highest priorities.” But Pruitt’s priorities for the EPA are far short of the protections that Florida waters need.

And Trump’s campaign pledges to help businesses by cutting federal regulations shouldn’t mean sacrificing pollution protections that would put Florida’s drinking water and public health at risk.

Diminishing programs that guard Florida’s waterways will end up hurting — not helping — businesses in a state dependent on tourism.

If Congress does back the president’s EPA budget cuts, that could shift more of those costs to state and local taxpayers.

Trump, who makes frequent Florida visits, doesn’t have to look far from his Mara-Lago Club to find examples of the need for the EPA’s pollution fighting efforts.

Recently, beaches near Mar-a-Lago were temporarily closed due to high bacteria levels typically blamed on pollution. And last year’s toxic algae blooms fouled waters less than an hour’s drive north of Trump’s Palm Beach estate.

Trying to save money by making big cuts to the EPA’s budget will make it harder to prevent and respond to those types of pollution emergencies in the future.

Also, while Trump’s nearly $3 billion in proposed EPA cuts risk efforts to fight pollution, the cuts would do little to trim the federal government’s nearly $600 billion budget deficit.

Congress and the president need to ensure that protecting Florida’s waters from pollution remains a federal priority, not a budget sacrifice.

Editorials are the opinion of the Sun Sentinel Editorial Board and written by one of its members or a designee. The Editorial Board consists of Editorial Page Editor Rosemary O’Hara, Elana Simms, Gary Stein, Andy Reid and Editor-in-Chief Howard Saltz.