EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson found himself on the business end of an Al Kamen flaying in the pages of the Washington Post today. It seems the former chemical executive found the old back just too darn sore to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee this morning, marking just the latest in a series of non-appearances by the EPA chief.

Come to think of it, there hasn’t been a whole lot of protection going on down at the EPA of late, either.  The agency doesn’t seem to think it’s their responsibility to regulate greenhouse gasses, or to control air pollution from oil refineries, or to set reasonable mercury emission controls, or even to punish chemical companies for the release of toxic waste.

Correct me if I’m wrong, here, but wasn’t the EPA founded—under President Nixon, of all people—with the mission of “protecting human health and the environment”? Since that time, hasn’t the EPA scored some major environmental victories, such as the Endangered Species Act and Superfund legislation?  So why the sudden impotence? Has the EPA simply lost its relevance in the modern era?

The answer is a resounding “no”. As it turns out, the hearing Administrator Johnson skipped this morning addressed recent findings that suggest the EPA’s fall from its perch as environmental protector has been due not to any change in legislation or loophole, but to direct and intentional interference by private influence and the reigning Presidential administration.

Indeed, the survey in question, published just last week, indicates that political interference with science and the law is rampant at the Agency. Among the more concerning findings:

“394 scientists (31 percent) had personally experienced frequent or occasional ‘statements by EPA officials that misrepresent scientists’ findings.

560 scientists (49 percent) knew of ‘many or some’ cases where political appointees at other federal agencies had inappropriately involved themselves in decisions.

889 scientists (60 percent of respondents) personally experienced at least one incident of political interference during the past five years.

507 scientists (42 percent) knew of ‘many or some’ cases where ‘commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of EPA scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention.’”

Fortunately for the American people, the report has been well received by legislators, despite the unwillingness of administrator Johnson to directly address the topic.  At a separate meeting yesterday, Senator Barbara Boxer (D, California), already a bit miffed at the timing of a recent trip Johnson took to Australia, was particularly pointed in her criticism of the agency.

Though the days of the current administration are numbered, it’s clear that the EPA needs to retake its old role as a watchdog and objective voice protecting the security of America’s environmental resources. Regardless of who resides in the Oval Office, the specter of private sector interference in EPA research is ever present, and represents a tremendous threat to the same “health and environment” that the Agency is charged to protect.