The EPA was structurally caught between irreconcilable demands from both directions.

Evidence

A pathological cycle involving national environmental policy in general and the EPA in particular emerged from the 1970s. When the EPA failed to meet a statutory deadline or to otherwise accommodate the regulatory community, members of Congress, especially those on the authorization committees who had drafted the relevant law, and the environmental community widely condemned the agency. On the other hand, when it demanded strict compliance with the law, members of the regulated community, some state governments, and members of Congress, especially those on appropriation committees more sensitive to economic concerns, similarly denounced the agency. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 411

Categorization

• XREF: Directly serves the polyad’s question of why environmental law structurally fails to protect the vulnerable — connects to Soundscape’s regulatory context and Eco-Justice. — connects to: Congress silently underfunded laws it had itself written strongly. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 414; Both sides treat environmental regulation as an absolute-rights matter, precluding economic compromise — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 150; Up to a hundred congressional subcommittees shared jurisdiction over the EPA in the 1970s. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 376