>
> >The EPA is just like any federal agency, they employ a lot of attorneys,
> and they are regularly sued as a normal part of their operations.  They
> have
> staff defense attorneys on their payroll, so the claim that "money spent
> defending lawsuits is money taken away from regulating" is flatly wrong.
>

I don't mind being wrong, but I hate being flatly wrong.  So I checked with
the highly-placed EPA official who had first explained the situation to
me.  His reply:

It’s my understanding  that the lawsuits expend large amounts of tax
dollars that could have been used toward assessing chemicals and enhancing
risk assessment tools/methods.  This “expense”, from my perspective, is in
large part due to science staff involvement in Agency preparations to
address litigation, which has become near continuous.  In my opinion, it
would be very naïve to believe that such litigations do not drain Agency
resources but are instead directed to feed the coffers of lawyers retained
by various advocacy groups.  This represents my personal opinion and should
not be construed as representing an EPA and/or U.S. Government perspective.
-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html