On the one hand, it's a victory for state's rights.

On the other, it's more government bureaucracy.

At its heart, it's political.

And there's no guarantee the changes will stick.

But still, I think it's a good thing that as one of his last acts in office, President Bush is making state and local governments much more involved in EPA policy.

The change was made by altering the interpretation of a 1999 executive order that said, in fairly loose terms, that federal agencies can't make sweeping, costly changes without getting the input of state, municipal, county and other local government bodies. The previous interpretation of sweeping and costly -- or in the E.O.'s words, "substantial" -- as it relates to the EPA was anything that would cost $100 million or more. The new interpretation is just a quarter of that -- $25 million.

It's political because of the timing. The Bush Administration had no problem with itself wielding unprecedented executive control over environmental policy, but wants to make sure that the next administration can't have the same power.

Most assuredly, the new threshold will mean that for President-elect Obama's EPA to institute strict new mercury controls and act on CO₂ control promises, they will have to schedule a whole lot of meetings with local and state officials. Some will be cordial. Some not so much.

What's good about it is that the EPA will not be able to simply throw down tough new regulations without heeding the varied needs of American businesses and the rights of communities. By setting the standard lower, the EPA is ensuring itself a bureaucratic nightmare. But the corollary is that the guy representing the township where they make Jack Daniels ([removes hat] a fine Tennessee Sour Mash I must say) will have his chance to speak.

This is something that would have been great to have these last eight years, as communities with a strong concern for their peoples' health, and communities who live and die with a certain local business, had little recourse when the EPA made an $80 million decision for them. It could have changed the outcome of several important decisions during that time, most notably the decision to pull the teeth out of New Source Review, or let Polluter Pays lapse, or tighten lead standards to a tenth of their previous level, or institute a nationwide mercury control rule, or wake up one morning and tell the East Coast -- hey, we're controlling NO_X now; start trading.

That's a dramatization. But the initial decision (by Clinton in his final years) to make "substantial" mean $100 million seems to me like it misses the spirit of the order.

It's important to note that this does not give state and local officials veto power. But advisory power in a bureaucracy this large means a lot more than it may seem at the surface. I think it's important that all communities face similar regulatory standards (and I'd like to see them copied by our trading partners too). This is because disproportionate standards create an economic advantage for the less regulated. Furthermore, allowing communities to de jure decline regulation creates an economic incentive to disregard public health. On the other hand, there are always extenuating circumstances, and the great big EPA couldn't possibly be expected to identify these all on their own.

So yes, the new $25 million standard is a snide political maneuver, its ultimate purpose meant to hamstring the next administration. It will only further slow down action by the EPA in meeting the environmental challenges that Obama and the Democrats have targeted. It will create bureaucratic headaches galore. But though motivated by politics, it's ultimately right. We are one nation, but we're a nation of states, cities, counties, townships, towns and villages, all with a range of different values, needs and priorities, and when it comes time to do something big, everyone should at least be heard.