iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Replies

Alt EPA @altepa456.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

Watched both budget hearings yesterday and today and as promised adding some notes. This one will be a little more disjointed. First is my pet peeve - you could tell who was on what side. Protecting human health and the environment should be bipartisan and the EPA should rely on science and law

15628

lynn0908.bsky.social @lynn0908.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

I keep reminding people that they tried this in 2025 with the “skinny” budget. And the senate noped them out the door. The fact that they even propose these cuts is gross, but I don’t think they will get the majority of them.

120

Alt EPA @altepa456.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

14/ overall not anything out of the blue. I did appreciate Z calling out our wonderful career scientists and giving them kudos. I don’t think the cut will be 52%, I think the biggest pushback will come supporting the state revolving funds. Just some quick thoughts

010

Alt EPA @altepa456.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

13/ what their qualifications were - ie does someone who did applied science their career fit in a job evaluating chemicals and is that appropriate? Great more bodies to help with a backlog, but is it really helping? What projects were cancelled? That info will be supplied in writing I guess

010

Alt EPA @altepa456.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

12/ technologies because there is no more Office of Research and Development which transitions to next topic The reorg wasn’t discussed nearly enough. No concrete info on who was moved to the new Office of Applied Science (~30%) no questions on the huge influx to Office of Chemicals and what

020

Alt EPA @altepa456.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

11/ so who bears that cost - passed to consumers? One member mentioned PFAS being removed from water as an example - these technologies are new and expensive. There isn’t tech that can be purchased(yet) with a 90% reduction without shifting costs somewhere. Then he mentioned research on these

020

Alt EPA @altepa456.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

10/ repeatedly mentioned - this is a federal and state partnership where the fed gives $ to states for infrastructure improvements. Very important. So a 90% reduction is huge, and state budgets don’t allow them to just shift shit around to cover that loss. But they still have to meet requirements

030

Alt EPA @altepa456.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

9/ I cannot emphasize the stress of getting that money, which should have been rolled out in smaller increments over a longer period of time. Great idea, poor execution. Finally - the last two issues are tied. 52% reduction overall which Z agrees with, but huge hit to state revolving funds

020

Alt EPA @altepa456.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

8/ when you even double a budget in a year, you need to have the people and vehicles to place it. Staffing is a big one, EPA is perpetually understaffed - you need to have people to plan projects with the money, or those who can issue grants or contracts, to issue that money appropriately

020

Alt EPA @altepa456.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

7/ note - just because you don’t like some projects doesn’t make it fraud or abuse automatically. Not deep diving that one. Z did mention, which I appreciate, that this “one time” huge influx of $100B (10x more the annual budget spread out over a few years) was too much - that is correct

020

Alt EPA @altepa456.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

6/ Methane rollback and questioned on whether the health impact was evaluated or just industry costs, the response was the previous regs adequately limited for safety and brought levels down Waste fraud and abuse was mentioned with IRA, but I haven’t seen anyone charged with fraud yet

030

Alt EPA @altepa456.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

5/ profit over consumer safety potentially. Why independent science is good. The jumping between industry and EPA to work on regulating that industry and back was mentioned - known issue Enforcement - if funding is cut by 50%, how will enforcement be impacted. I guess it won’t? Somehow?

040

Alt EPA @altepa456.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

4/ Glyphosate talked about a lot (Bayer herbicide) and carcinogenic harms- it will be studied this year - I recommend looking into analysis of an expert following the Supreme Court case determining if liability can be limited. Good note - Bayer failed to warn, highlighting how again industry put

020

Alt EPA @altepa456.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

3/ maybe instead of screaming back and forth about EPA removing the finding Congress could work together to revise or pass a law. Call me crazy but arguing doesn’t get your point across in a way that appeals to me. Win - microplastics and pharmaceuticals were placed on contaminant candidate list

070

Alt EPA @altepa456.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

2/ To make decisions. With that - endangerment finding - always been debated on whether GHGs were covered in CAA as something EPA could regulate. Z said repeatedly - he’s carrying out the law and if they want EPA to regulate then pass a law. This has been debated and subject to recession.

010

Rogue NASA @roguenasa.altgov.info · 29/04/2026

Same with us, every time. ☹️

160