The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), founded in 1970 by William D. Ruckelshaus, was a bipartisan organization to create a cleaner environment through the regulation of individual conduct, forming acceptable compromises for all parties while regulating actions regarding the environment, and redirecting policy and energy toward the goal of cleaning up America (Ruckelshaus). This goal was pursued within five different sectors of the EPA; Water Quality, Air Pollution, Pesticides, Radiation, and Solid Wastes. The EPA conducted independent research and instituted regional regulatory, and financial assistance programs (Ruckelshaus). However, the goals of individual offices often needed to be revised, leading to a change to mission-oriented goals.  As the organization got older, the main goals shifted towards focusing on solutions that directly impacted human health while having minimal perceived economic harm. With this shift, and as a resource and environmental economics grew, the EPA began using market-based mechanisms to achieve its desired outcomes (Morgenstein). The staff was made up of both federalists and centralists with varying ideas on decentralization in the government. Ruckelshaus wanted a centralized enforcement agency but struggled to establish the EPA’s credibility (Williams). The EPA struggled to achieve its original goal while grappling with the ethical dilemma of sustainability of environmental health versus the potential negative economic impact of environmental regulation. This dilemma continued in the 1990s, as the organization gained attention and support, which led to increased research on the economic impact of environmental regulation. The EPA has proved that the balancing of environmental regulation and economic considerations is possible, as environmental protection preserves the long term health of the economy. 

William D. Ruckelshaus worked to establish the credibility and public support of the EPA by promoting the Clean Air Act and working against large corporations to support one side of the dilemma, environmental health. Ruckelshaus was convinced that a centralized enforcement agency provided the best approach to successfully implementing pollution control and fulfilling his goals of environmental protection/cleanup (Williams). The EPA tried to enforce Federal Water Quality laws and regulations on a large company, the court ordered Armco Steel to stop the releasing of toxic chemicals into the waterway. Armco Steel is a major American steelmaking corporation that had a factory near water. Armco Steel responded by sending a letter to President Nixon stating that the EPA was going against Nixon’s statement that “industry would not be a whipping boy in solving our environmental problems." The situation escalated and the stakes were high, with the EPA’s reputation on the line. Nixon was unsupportive of environmental protection and was reluctant to enforce regulations that could potentially harm the economy. In response to the letter, the Nixon administration proposed a 60-day stay of the court order to negotiate a solution, which the EPA did not favor. In response, Armco Steel sent a letter saying that 300 people would become unemployed if this order passed. This threat held a lot of credibility as Nixon was actively trying to lower unemployment rates (Williams). The media eventually got hold of this situation and catalyzed a negotiation among the three bodies. The Washington Star learned that Armco Steel made significant financial contributions to Nixon’s campaign and therefore viewed this proposed stay extremely negatively. The Washington Star deemed that it would be an inappropriate political concession for the EPA to accept the 60-day stay. 

The EPA’s power and focus on environmental issues shifted over time due to scandals and public pressure. The EPA was able to benefit from the situation with Armco Steel and capitalized on the public backlash to successfully require Armco Steel to install waste treatment facilities (Williams). This situation is an example of the sustainability of environmental health winning the fight in a dilemma. Public support for environmental health was so strong, that when the media released information on the proposed stay and the details of the financial relationship between Armco Steel and the Nixon Administration, the EPA was able to negotiate a deal with Armco Steel that had stringent environmental protections, free of interference from the Nixon administration. This situation caused an uncomfortable position for the EPA as congressional mandates bound the EPA, but the EPA also was a part of the executive branch. There was a continued fight for power between the two branches of government until Nixon’s presidency became severely challenged by the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal. In response to Nixon’s waning public support, the executive branch lost power over the EPA, and Congress began to carry the power. The EPA became more focused on environmental health again (Williams). 

William wanted to prove the influence of the organization and tackle bigger goals such as cleaning up our cities. He delivered a 180-day notice to Atlanta, Detroit, and Cleveland requiring them to improve their pollution control or face EPA intervention, to demonstrate the abilities of the EPA. Though he had little enforcement power, he hoped that this notice would cause these cities to follow state protocol for pollution control and that he wouldn’t have to get the Department of Justice involved. Without established credibility, the interaction quickly turned political when the Mayor of Cleveland accused William of targeting Democratic-controlled cities. Despite this setback, the EPA was able to pursue 152 pollution cases in its first year (Williams). This action was consistent with the EPA’s original goals of protecting environmental health,  without interference from the executive branch of government. One other large success with environmental health during Nixon’s presidency was the Clean Air Act of 1970. The Clean Air Act was one of the first large pieces of legislation that the EPA established. The act determined standards for air pollutants and modes of control for their sources. One example of this was banning lead-based paint and eventually lead-based gasoline in the following years. This action was not only a step towards environmental health but also public safety and marked a shift towards federal government responsibility (“A Look at EPA Accomplishments”). Additionally, the EPA was able to begin focusing on smaller areas, such as the Great Lakes region to begin environmental cleanup. They were able to implement waste programs around the country to support their two goals of sustainability and health safety (“A Look at EPA Accomplishments”). 

The Nixon administration was skeptical of the economic loss associated with the EPA and therefore restructured the EPA to gain more influence. Nixon was unsupportive of the creation of the Council of Environmental Quality. However, after it was established, he began to endorse it openly (Percival). The goal of this council was to ensure that the executive branch of the government was following environmental rules and not blocking regulations unnecessarily. In opposition, Roy Ash, the chairman of the President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization, wanted to establish a separate agency with competing interests for environmental and development issues that would reside within the executive branch. Ash believed this agency would be more manageable for the White House and easier to control. Later on, a separate agency was created by the votes of bipartisan members of Congress (Percival). This agency had a slightly different goal of combining environmental and resource management. In response, Nixon’s chief domestic policy aide sought to make a council to regulate the EPA’s actions as he was concerned with the size of its budget and tried to reorganize the executive branch to take on a new management role over environmental decisions (Percival). Again, there was underlying skepticism about the importance of the EPA, leading to disruptive actions against the organization. Economic benefits were valued greater than the potential environmental benefits from the regulations. 

Nixon created a new organization with the sole purpose of reviewing the actions of the EPA to force the EPA to be more economically conscious. This council was the Quality of Life Council and was made to raise challenges for the proposals of the EPA. When the White House continued to interfere with the role of the EPA, the EPA responded with media tension once again. William Ruckelshaus, the creator of the EPA, threatened to quit if political considerations played a role in the EPA’s proposals. However, in a hearing, Ruckelshaus still supported the executive branch (Percival). As the public became more aware of environmental concerns and the environmental movement grew, the Nixon Administration expanded its support for the EPA to gain popularity. The National Industrial Pollution Control Council was created to communicate with big corporations about policies and to get input on regulations. This council was operated out of the Department of Commerce, which made it easy to weaken environmental regulations for these big organizations and sway the results of the policy decisions. This council represented the power of the executive branch to interfere with results to support economic growth (Percival). 

The controversial power structure of the EPA continued for the rest of the decade after Nixon’s presidency. In 1978, the Regulatory Analysis Review Group became another group of economic-orientated analysts that would review EPA’s goals and proposals. They often aggressively contradicted proposals to the point that EPA officials felt that "continuing White House intervention in the regulatory process [was] compromising their efforts to establish and enforce anti-pollution laws” (Percival). For example, in deciding on the approach to regulating surface mining, a decision with significant potential economic consequence, many environmentalists questioned whether the new president, President Carter, would continue to seek to influence environmental decisions. Responding to this concern, Carter announced that he would not compromise environmental standards for economic gain, but still would be a part of the decision-making. This announcement emphasized societal concerns with the EPA and the influence of the executive branch, even after the height of the Environmental Movement. Additionally, the response of the public indicated the continuous unfair power the executive branch held after Nixon’s presidency.  

In the 1990s, twenty years after the creation of the EPA, more economic research was conducted which concluded that there was little economic loss associated with environmental regulations. This research occurred after years of the EPA gauging their success based on the extent to which they were able to contain the harmful economic impacts of their efforts rather than the magnitude of the environmental benefits of their efforts.  As indicated by Frank Arnold’s research publication titled “Environmental Protection: Is It Bad for the Economy,” most environmental regulation has had little to no negative economic impact, a conclusion that validated the success of the organization. The majority of the large accomplishments of the EPA in its first two decades were based on regulations that were intended to positively impact environmental health, as long as they were not at the expense of the health of the economy  (“A Look at EPA Accomplishments”). A common misconception is that environmental regulations typically result in widespread layoffs and unemployment. However, the total costs for industry are relatively low and only affect large, high-capital industrial sectors. Further, these regulations typically affect all domestic competitors similarly and therefore do not result in the shutdown of companies. Additionally, trading partners of the United States also often have similar environmental regulation costs so most US companies are not disadvantaged relative to international competitors (Arnold, et al). Moreover, the common perception that environmental regulation causes employee layoffs is largely overblown. People are 500 times more likely to be laid off due to seasonal slowdowns than to be laid off due to environmental regulations (Arnold, et al). In contrast to public perception, there are many employment benefits associated with environmental regulation. These benefits include lower unemployment rates over time, healthier workers who miss fewer workdays, enhanced labor productivity, lower medical care costs, and a higher rate of private investment (Arnold, et al). In a study on the Clean Air Act, researchers concluded that the United States gets 10-100 dollars of benefits for every dollar spent on air pollution control (Arnold, et al). Overall, the Environmental Protection Agency is economically conscious, and despite the myths, environmental protection benefits outweigh the negatives.