Today, March 9, is the one-year anniversary of President Obama’s scientific integrity memo which instructed his staff to produce within 120 days recommendations for ensuring independence of federal scientists and limiting political interference in their work. 365 days later, we’re still waiting.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is critical of the delay. Francesca Grifo, director of UCS’s scientific integrity program, had this to say:

While the new administration has been generally supportive of scientific integrity values, it's moving too slowly to establish badly needed reforms. The current system still discourages scientists from communicating about their research results, for example. It still keeps the public in the dark about the scientific basis for policy decisions, and it still rewards staffers who keep quiet about political interference in science. 

The criteria Obama laid out in his March 9, 2009, memo are admirable: hiring and keeping qualified scientists; defining new policies to ensure integrity; using “well-established scientific processes” like peer review; disclosing scientific findings; ensuring that scientific integrity principles are being adhered to; and adopting additional policies like whistleblower protections.

But by failing to follow up with a concrete set of reforms, Obama and John Holdren – the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy who was tasked with developing recommendations – are sending a terrible message to those who believe scientific integrity ought to be a priority for this administration.

Interference in science reached new heights under President George W. Bush; but just because Bush is gone does not mean the problems go away too. As OMB Watch discusses in the latest issue of our e-newsletter The Watcher, a new report from the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP) proves that much work remains. SKAPP interviewed federal scientists during both the Bush and Obama administrations, and found that although there were a few bright spots in scientists' views of the changes that had occurred, a majority felt similar frustrations.

Couple this delay with the now year-plus delay on Obama’s effort to improve the regulatory process by writing a new executive order, and my outlook on the administration’s commitment to government reform is dimming.

Photo by Flickr user davidfntau. Used under a Creative Commons license.

An article in yesterday’s New York Times details how the Supreme Court has shafted the American people when it comes to water quality. Because of two cases, “About 117 million Americans get their drinking water from sources fed by waters that are vulnerable to exclusion from the Clean Water Act, according to E.P.A. reports.”

The problem stems from the definition of the word “navigable,” the operative word in the Clean Water Act that describes the kinds of waters the EPA may regulate. In two cases, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and Rapanos v. United States, the court limited the definition of “navigable waters” to preclude certain wetlands, seasonal streams, and isolated bodies of water, regardless of public exposure to these waters.

We’ve known for some time that the cases, one decided in 2001 and one decided in 2006, injected ambiguity into EPA’s interpretation of the act, but the Times’ article sheds additional light onto the breadth and impact the uncertainty has had on enforcement efforts:

More than 200 oil spill cases were delayed as of 2008, according to a memorandum written by an E.P.A. official and collected by Congressional investigators. And even as the number of facilities violating the Clean Water Act has steadily increased each year, E.P.A. judicial actions against major polluters have fallen by almost half since the Supreme Court rulings, according to an analysis of E.P.A. data by The New York Times. [emphasis added] 

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced last year the Clean Water Restoration Act to restore EPA’s authority. Basically, the bill would delete the word “navigable” from the original Clean Water Act. But in the United States Congress, successful passage of common sense legislation is a long shot. Similar bills were introduced in both the House and the Senate in 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2007. Feingold’s latest iteration is the first one in either chamber to pass the committee stage.

A member of an industry coalition opposing the act had this to say:

“If you can get Glenn Beck to say that government storm troopers are going to invade your property, farmers in the Midwest will light up their congressmen’s switchboards.” […] Mr. Beck, a conservative commentator on Fox News, spoke at length against the Clean Water Restoration Act in December. 

The right to clean water is a concept most of America has been on board with since at least the 1970s. Preventing dumping in wetlands, which in turn keeps pollution out of rivers and drinking water supplies, seems like a no-brainer. But when government has a chance to play a positive role in society, Beck, certain industry groups, some lawmakers, and the rest of the anti-government machine say “No!” – even to the no-brainers. Unfortunately, congressional Democrats, with their sizeable majorities, are perfectly willing to acquiesce.

Global Integrity, an international nonprofit organization that tracks global corruption trends, released the Global Integrity Index: 2009. The report analyzed 35 countries' ability to counter corruption, and the tools available to citizens to hold the government accountable.

"Rather than examine the 'cancer' of corruption, the Index investigates the 'medicine' being used against it — in the form of government accountability, transparency, and citizen oversight." Overall, the U.S. scored 85 out of 100, and was the second least corrupt country in the study.

According to the findings, "The Obama administration's early anti-corruption efforts focused significantly on tighter restrictions around lobbying. While certainly not harmful, there are few data to suggest that increasing the transparency around lobbying activities at the federal level is the solution to corruption challenges in the United States. Rather than lobbying, Global Integrity data point to the corrupting influence of massive amounts of money in the federal elections process as one of the core drivers of corruption in the American system."

Further, the Citizens United decision, "will likely pour fuel on the fire of political corruption in the U.S. While free speech concerns loomed large in the court's decision to overturn longstanding campaign finance controls, the practical reality is that by allowing significant new inflows of private money into the U.S. political process, the court's decision may simply overwhelm an already dysfunctional Federal Elections Commission and undermine prospects for more accountable governance."

Nevertheless, the administration earned high marks for urging federal agencies to disclose information under Freedom of Information Act requests and for the Open Government Initiative. Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, in a peer review section of the document stated "it will take time for Obama to overcome a longtime pattern of secrecy that has been imbedded in the federal bureaucracy. 'The culture in government is that you typically don't give out information that you don't have to.'"

According to the report, "significant progress has not been achieved in curbing corruption at the national level in the U.S." For more information on the report and how the study was conducted, click here.

Allegations that the White House watered down an EPA rule on air pollution monitors are false, according to a senior EPA official who says the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) actually made the rule stronger.

EPA Assistant Administrator for clean air Gina McCarthy told the Wonk Room, a blog of the Center for American Progress, that OIRA prompted EPA to rearrange the placement of air pollution monitors to ultimately better protect vulnerable populations, all without reducing the overall number of monitors. Wonk Room reports this quote from McCarthy:

[OMB] asked us, “Did we respond to the states’ comments?” We realized we could design the monitoring system in a better way than we had proposed. We could take the 40 monitors and place them by roadways near our most vulnerable populations. It was a significant win for us to be able to do that. It didn’t diminish the system. 

At issue is the air monitoring network for nitrogen dioxide pollution. Last month, EPA issued a final rule tightening the standard for nitrogen dioxide exposure and announced a new framework for detecting pollution levels by placing more monitors in urban areas, especially near roadways. EPA describes these environments as “high-risk.”

At first glance, it looked like OIRA had pushed EPA to reduce the overall number of monitors, just days before the rule was due. (I perpetuated that idea here.) But, according to McCarthy’s comments, the last-minute changes made to the monitoring network did not reduce the number of monitors; instead, the changes grant on-the-ground EPA and state officials more flexibility to site monitors themselves.

The change means that 41 fewer near-road monitors will be required, but that 40 more monitors will be required “in communities where susceptible and vulnerable populations are exposed to NO2.” Those communities may or may not be near roads – it’s up to EPA regional administrators, working with the states.

The rulemaking docket contains emails showing that another senior EPA official objected to a proposed reduction in the number of monitors. However, from McCarthy’s comments, it would appear the granting of authority to regional administrators appeased all sides, since the total number of monitors remains about the same.

This instance does not change my view that the rule-by-rule review required by Executive Order 12866 and carried out by OIRA is unnecessary and at times counterproductive. However, in this case, it seems OIRA worked with, not against, the EPA. “There was no arm-twisting involved,” McCarthy told Wonk Room.