The EPA vs. the Perchlorate Lobby, Take Two

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Earlier this year MoJo bureau chief David Corn looked at the fierce tug-of-war in Washington over an obscure chemical called perchlorate. Over the years, perchlorate, which is used in rocket fuel and fireworks, has leaked from industrial and military sites into the water supply of as many as 40 million Americans. It’s been linked to neurological problems in small children, and the Environmental Protection Agency has deemed it hazardous to humans. For many years environmental advocates have wanted the government to establish limits on how much perchlorate can safely be present in drinking water. And for many years, perchlorate manufacturers have resisted, hiring the top-dollar help of lobbyists like former Nevada Democratic senator Richard Bryan. Thanks to their assistance, the EPA under the Bush administration refused to regulate perchlorate, even though the agency’s own scientists had urged that it do so.

On Tuesday, however, the EPA set the stage for another big perchlorate showdown: It announced that it is considering regulating the chemical and is particularly concerned about its health effects on children. The agency’s new chief, Lisa Jackson, is already on record favoring a standard of five parts of perchlorate per billion parts of drinking water. But as David shows in his piece, the lobbyists for perchlorate firms are well-funded and skilful—and those with Democratic ties, like Bryan, will arguably wield more influence in Obama’s Washington than they did during the era of Republican dominance. They’ll doubtless be working hard behind the scenes to head off the EPA’s new regulatory enthusiasm. We’ll let you know how this plays out.   

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate