In theory, the unfunded mandates reform law passed in the 104th Congress prevents the imposition of new unfunded mandates. The Safe Drinking Water Act was also reformed in 1996 to give local water systems more flexibility and further lighten the mandate burden. But some are not sure it worked out that way.

When I was out in Oregon last weekend I noticed this editorial decrying EPA rules requiring additional water filtration systems to address the virtually non-existent cryptosporidium threat in Portland's water supply. According to the Oregonian:

The risk of contracting crypto from drinking Portland tap water is close to zero. Not zero, we should emphasize, because it could theoretically happen, but the odds are against it. It's not something to sit up nights worrying about. And it's not something that ratepayers of the Portland Water Bureau should invest up to $60 million or more to eradicate.

It is one thing for the EPA to inform local communities about potential risks in local water supplies. It is quite another to force local communities to adopt "protective" measures that are unwanted and may come at the expense of other, more important local priorities.

The editorial was headlined "GOP Should Help City Get Waiver." Perhaps. On ther other hand, maybe politicans of both parties should find ways to grant state and local governments greater flexibility in environmental policy.