Environmental Budget Cuts Threaten Public Health

Most people assume someone is watching the air they breathe and the water they drink. But in state after state, that “someone” is being laid off, defunded, or buried under an impossible backlog.

A new report from the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) lays out just how deep the cuts to environmental agencies have been across the U.S.—and the numbers are brutal. Mississippi’s environmental budget is down 71% since 2010. Texas is down 33%. North Carolina has seen some of the steepest staff losses in the nation. All of this is happening while fossil fuel, plastics, and petrochemical industries expand and climate disasters get more frequent and more expensive.

This matters because strong environmental enforcement isn’t a “nice to have” for nature lovers. It’s core public infrastructure—just as critical as roads, hospitals, and power lines. If you care about clean tech, green investment, or simply protecting your family’s health, these cuts shape the risk landscape you live and work in.

Below, I’ll break down what the report shows, how these cuts hit communities and green industries, and what practical steps businesses, local officials, and residents can take right now.

What the EIP Report Really Says About Environmental Cuts

Deep cuts to state environmental agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are directly weakening pollution protection and public health.

Over the last 15 years, the EPA’s budget has been slashed by about 40%, while its workforce has shrunk by 18%. Since President Trump’s second term began, more than 3,000 EPA workers have retired or been terminated. At the same time, the administration has proposed a 55% cut to EPA’s 2026 budget—around $4.2 billion.

The political spin is that “power is being given back to the states.” The reality? States are being asked to take on more responsibility while losing the federal support and state-level funding they need to do the job.

States hit hardest on environmental budgets

According to the EIP analysis, these states have seen the steepest environmental budget cuts between 2010 and 2024:

• Mississippi — 71% cut
• South Dakota — 61% cut
• Alabama — 49% cut
• Texas — 33% cut
• Montana — 32% cut

Those are not minor trims. They’re structural amputations.

In North Carolina, the picture is more complicated because of a 2015 agency restructuring, but the direction is the same: less money, fewer people, more work. Even as the state’s population grew by more than 5% from 2020 to 2024, its Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) saw its inflation-adjusted budget fall by 6% over roughly the same period.

The core message from the report is blunt: when you shrink these agencies, you don’t just save money—you increase risk.

How Environmental Cuts Show Up in Everyday Life

Environmental budget cuts don’t show up first in spreadsheets. They show up in backlogged inspections, slow enforcement, and communities waiting years for relief.

The Texas example: pollution with no referee

Take the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).

• Lawmakers have cut TCEQ’s budget by one-third over the last decade (adjusted for inflation).
• 30% of its workforce has less than two years of experience, and half have less than five years.
• The agency takes an average of 351 days—almost a full year—to process a single enforcement case.
• There’s a backlog of about 1,400 enforcement cases.

Kathryn Guerra, who’s worked both for TCEQ and the EPA and now advocates with Public Citizen, calls the underfunding so severe that it “renders the agency largely ineffective.” The practical meaning of “ineffective” is simple:

Polluters can break the rules for months—or years—before anyone forces them to stop.

For communities living near refineries, chemical plants, or industrial animal operations, those delays are not abstract. They mean more days of breathing toxic air, more nights worrying about their kids’ asthma, more years living with contaminated wells.

North Carolina: climate damage meets weak enforcement

North Carolina is a good example of how climate impacts and weak enforcement collide.

Drew Ball of the Natural Resources Defense Council, who also serves as a Buncombe County Commissioner in an area hammered by Hurricane Helene in 2024, explained it clearly:

• After heavy rains, families in eastern North Carolina see tap water turn cloudy.
• When hurricanes push floodwaters through low-lying industrial and agricultural areas, they mix industrial pollution, animal waste, and stormwater.
• There are fewer inspectors and staff available to respond, trace, and address those threats.

North Carolina DEQ has struggled with vacancy rates over 20% in recent years. Pay scales set by the legislature can’t compete with the private sector, so the agency can’t hire or keep the people it needs.

So climate disasters get worse. The pollution risks increase. And the very agencies meant to protect people fall further behind.

Why This Crisis Undercuts Green Technology and Clean Investment

Here’s the thing about environmental enforcement: it’s not anti-business. It’s the rulebook that makes serious green investment viable.

If you’re building a solar farm, battery plant, or green hydrogen facility, you need predictable rules, consistent enforcement, and public trust. Deep environmental cuts attack all three.

Weak enforcement favors dirty players

When agencies are starved of staff and funding:

• Bad actors gain an unfair advantage by cutting corners on pollution controls.
• Responsible companies that invest in cleaner technologies are put at a cost disadvantage.
• Communities lose faith that the system will protect them, which increases local opposition to all industrial projects—including clean ones.

That last point is critical. I’ve seen clean energy projects stalled not because the technology was unsafe, but because residents simply didn’t trust any promises from government or industry. Years of weak enforcement against high-polluting projects poisoned the well.

Green tech needs strong regulators

If you work in green technology or sustainable infrastructure, strong environmental agencies actually help you by:

• Clarifying standards for air, water, and waste so your engineers know what to design for.
• Shortening permitting timelines when agencies aren’t buried under backlogs.
• Reducing litigation risk by ensuring projects meet robust, enforceable requirements.
• Building social license by showing that someone independent is watching and willing to act.

That’s why serious climate and clean energy strategies always pair investment in green technology with investment in environmental governance. You need both.

Environmental Justice: Who Gets Hurt First (and Worst)

Deep environmental cuts don’t land evenly. They hit low-income communities and communities of color first.

These neighborhoods are more likely to be located near:

• Oil and gas infrastructure
• Petrochemical and plastics plants
• Major highways and freight corridors
• Industrial livestock operations

When agencies lose staff and funding, these communities lose:

• Routine inspections that catch problems early
• Timely responses to complaints and odor, noise, or contamination reports
• Monitoring data that can prove long-term harm
• Dedicated environmental justice programs (one regional EPA environmental justice office was eliminated under Trump, for example)

As Drew Ball put it, many families are already living with waste in roadside ditches and wells too contaminated to drink from, while bracing for the next storm or flood. Cutting budgets and staff in that context isn’t neutral policy—it’s a decision about whose health is expendable.

From a justice perspective, it’s indefensible. From a risk management perspective, it’s reckless.

What You Can Do: Practical Steps for 2026 and Beyond

The reality is simpler than it looks: environmental protection is a political choice and a budget line. If you want cleaner air, safer water, and a stable platform for green growth, funding has to match the job.

Here are concrete actions different groups can take.

If you’re a business or green tech leader

You don’t have to agree with every regulation to see the value of strong, competent agencies.

• Publicly support realistic funding for environmental agencies. Chambers of commerce and industry groups have real influence at state capitols.
• Engage early with regulators. Share data, invite site visits, and work collaboratively on permits that are both protective and efficient.
• Document your environmental performance. Transparent reporting (even beyond what’s required) builds trust with both regulators and communities.
• Join or form local coalitions that include health groups, environmental advocates, and forward-looking businesses. When that mix shows up together, lawmakers listen.

If you’re a local official or policymaker

County commissioners, city council members, and state legislators have more leverage than they sometimes realize.

• Treat environmental agencies as core infrastructure. Clean water and air are just as essential as roads and broadband.
• Push for staffing benchmarks. For example: maximum caseloads per inspector, maximum average days to process enforcement cases.
• Protect permit fee structures. North Carolina’s experience shows that as air quality improves, fee revenue can drop while oversight needs remain. Adjust fees before the gap becomes a crisis.
• Invest in resilience and enforcement together. Climate adaptation projects (like flood control) should be paired with monitoring and enforcement so you know whether they’re actually preventing contamination.

If you’re a resident or advocate

You don’t need to be a technical expert to have impact.

• Track your state’s environmental budget and staffing. Ask your legislators directly where they stand on funding.
• Document local problems. Cloudy water after storms, odors, dust, dead fish—photos, dates, and clear descriptions matter.
• Submit comments on permits and rule changes. Agencies are legally required to consider them.
• Support independent climate and environmental reporting. Outlets that investigate pollution and hold agencies accountable make it much harder for deep cuts to happen quietly.

Where We Go From Here

The EIP report is a warning, but it’s also a roadmap. We know exactly what’s being cut, where, and with what likely consequences. That means we’re not flying blind. We’re making choices.

If we keep shrinking the Environmental Protection Agency and state environmental budgets while fossil fuel and petrochemical industries expand, we’re essentially betting that:

• Fewer inspections will be enough,
• Fewer staff can handle more disasters,
• And communities will quietly accept more risk.

That’s not a smart bet—for public health, for climate resilience, or for the long-term growth of green technology.

There’s a better way to approach this: treat environmental protection as the platform that clean innovation stands on, not as a cost center to be carved up. Fund the inspectors, scientists, and enforcement teams the same way we fund bridges and power grids. Because in practice, they’re doing the same thing—keeping society functioning safely.

The next few budget cycles, at both state and federal levels, will decide whether this wave of cuts becomes permanent or gets reversed. The question isn’t just, “How much does environmental protection cost?” It’s, “How much risk are we willing to buy instead?”