Rules on runoff face delays

When the Obama administration agreed to set the first-ever federal limits on runoff in Florida, environmental groups were pleased. They thought the state’s waters would finally get a break from a nutrient overdose that spawns algae, suffocates rivers, lakes and streams, and forms byproducts in drinking water that could make people sick.

Nearly three years later — with a presidential election looming and Florida expected to play a critical role in the outcome — those groups are still waiting. The rules, originally scheduled to take effect in March, won’t be active until next January, and even then could be replaced altogether by state-drafted regulations.

In fact, a growing number of regulations are being delayed at federal agencies or at the White House. The list includes a rule cracking down on junk food at school bake sales, another banning children from dangerous work on farms, and one setting federal standards for disposing toxic ash from coal-fired power plants.

Together, the delays suggest caution by the administration at a time when President Obama is increasingly under attack by Republicans and business groups for pushing regulations that they say will kill jobs or needlessly extend federal power.

“Issuing more regulations now would not help dispel the perception that President Obama’s administration is ’anti-business,’ ” said John D. Graham, who from 2001 to 2006 headed the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the White House’s political gatekeeper for new rules. And with unemployment at 8 percent, “the Obama administration knows that more costly burdens on business will not create jobs. Those rules will have to wait until after the election.”

It’s not uncommon for rule making to slow during election years “because the White House does not want to create any controversy,” Mr. Graham, now dean of Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs, wrote in an email to the Associated Press.

Just last week, the EPA announced it would wait until 2013 to issue a regulation aimed at reducing the number of juvenile fish and shellfish that die in power plants’ cooling water intakes and would also tweak a rule requiring new power plants to control mercury and other toxic air pollution. Republicans and industry had charged that both rules would help “kill” coal as an electricity source by helping to shut down older plants and preventing new ones from being built.

“Election-year politics commenced earlier than I have experienced in over two decades of working on these issues,” said Vickie Patton, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund, which through litigation has forced the Obama administration to unveil politically sensitive rule changes, such as a stronger standard for soot, before the election.

But it’s difficult to pin down the motives, especially when a rule gets to the White House. “If something sits over there for a year … is it political pressure or is it that they are tinkering with the details? The speculation is not the latter, but none of us really know because the process is so hidden,” said Randy Rabinowitz, director of regulatory policy at OMB Watch.

Asked whether the delays on some rules had political motivations, White House spokesman Clark Stevens said in a statement that “every standard or rule is different, and the process for finalizing a rule and making sure it meets administration priorities is unique.”