Rampell: Economic boost is in fact a bust

As a case study, take the administration’s decision to formally repeal a rule that granted expanded federal oversight of U.S. waterways. We are reverting to water-pollution standards from 1986 — a year from Trump’s favorite decade, which was not exactly a high-water mark, so to speak, for environmental protections.

For context, this is one of many deregulatory actions Trump has taken to allow more pollution. Others include allowing power plants to dump more lead, arsenic and mercury into the water; relaxing restrictions on the release of methane and fine particulate matter into the air; and legalizing a pesticide linked to brain damage in children.

This latest case involved the bodies of water the federal government can protect under the Clean Water Act, which makes it illegal to pollute a “water of the United States” without a permit. An Obama administration rule clarified that “waters of the United States” include streams and wetlands that feed larger waterways, including those used for drinking-water. The government’s cost-benefit analysis produced at the time found that this rule produced net economic benefits.

The Trump administration’s cost-benefit analysis, however, came to the opposite conclusion — chiefly because it abruptly decided that the largest category of benefits previously attributed to the rule could no longer be quantified at all. (The Trump administration said the research that had been used to quantify the benefits of protecting wetlands was too old, even though it cited even older research elsewhere in the same report.)

Therefore, these benefits were effectively assigned a value of zero. Voila, the rule must go.

This legerdemath aside, it’s not exactly clear how allowing water pollution would help supercharge economic growth. Sure, it might save some businesses a few bucks to be able to dump toxic waste into a local tributary without a permit, but it’s difficult to argue this has a positive impact on the overall economy or public welfare.

After all, it’s generally less costly to not pollute the water system in the first place than to try to clean it up once it’s already polluted. Just ask Flint, Mich.

This episode helps illustrate how Trump’s deregulatory agenda often relies on a false dichotomy: If a policy is pro-environment, it must not be pro-business. In fact, several of the Trump administration’s harmful deregulatory actions have faced opposition from the very businesses the administration claims to be helping.

Major players in the fossil-fuel industry have opposed the methane emissions relaxation, because they want to be able to make a credible case that natural gas can be clean and climate-friendly.

The auto industry has likewise opposed the administration’s rollback of fuel-efficiency standards. The supposedly pro-business Trump administration’s response was to weaponize the Justice Department, launching a bogus antitrust investigation into the automakers.

The cumulative economic costs of such actions — based on damage to the environment, human health and rule of law — may be hard to fully quantify. But we know they’re not zero.