U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

Origins, Authorities, and Organization

May 28, 2026

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

R48961

SUMMARY

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Origins,

Authorities, and Organization

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established through the Reorganization

Plan No. 3 of 1970 (Reorganization Plan No. 3), issued by President Nixon, with the purpose of

consolidating and coordinating federal pollution control responsibilities and functions. In 2025,

President Trump signed several executive orders that directed EPA, among other agencies, to

make changes to its structure and eliminate certain programs. As changes to the agency have

been planned and implemented, Congress has demonstrated increasing interest in the origins,

authorities, and structure of EPA.

R48961

May 28, 2026

Angela C. Jones

Specialist in Environmental

Policy

Congressional interest in pollution control began in the 1940s with enactment of several pollution control statutes to address a

range of environmental concerns. Prior to the creation of EPA, federal pollution control responsibilities were implemented by

several different departments and agencies, separately addressing air quality, water pollution, solid waste management,

pesticides, radiation, and other pollution and environmental protection issues. In addition, many states and some local

governments had implemented pollution control laws and programs.

The general purpose of Reorganization Plan No. 3 was to centralize and coordinate most federal pollution control functions

within one independent federal agency. In 1984, Congress ratified as law all reorganization plans then in effect, including

Reorganization Plan No. 3. Since 1970, Congress has enacted and amended more than a dozen pollution control statutes that

EPA implements, such as the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act; the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act; the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the National Environmental Policy Act; and

the Safe Drinking Water Act.

EPA’s purposes, as established in Reorganization Plan No. 3 and generally continuing to the present day, include

environmental standard-setting; research; monitoring; enforcement; and providing assistance to states, tribes, and local

governments to support implementation of federal pollution control programs. As a regulatory agency, EPA is responsible for

researching, developing, and implementing environmental regulations as directed by Congress through statute. The agency’s

activities cover multiple environmental media (e.g., air, water, and land) and a range of pollution control efforts, such as air

and water quality regulation, waste management, cleanup of contaminated sites, environmental permitting, and regulation of

chemicals in commerce. In addition, following the principle of “cooperative federalism,” EPA delegates the administration of

many programs to states and tribes. Congress has provided appropriations throughout the agency’s history to support EPA

funding of state and tribal activities, as well as grant programs to public and nonprofit entities conducting research, technical

assistance, and other environment-related activities.

EPA’s current organizational structure includes 10 headquarters offices, 10 regional offices across the United States, labs,

and research centers. In the last decade, EPA staffing has ranged from nearly 13,000 full-time equivalents (FTEs) to more

than 18,000 FTEs, with 12,500 FTEs estimated for FY2027. EPA’s annual appropriations have been relatively steady, when

adjusted for inflation since 1980, supplemented by significant additional appropriations from Congress in FY2009 and

FY2022-2026. For FY2026, EPA’s enacted annual appropriations totaled $8.82 billion, with supplemental advance

appropriations of $12.01 billion from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58).

EPA’s organizational structure and statutory authorities are closely interrelated; both factors influence the agency’s

responsibilities and capacity for promulgating regulations, conducting research, developing standards, and administering

programs. Further, EPA appropriations, staffing, and other resources are directly related to the agency’s organizational

structure and implementation of statutory duties. Congress could consider a range of policy issues when conducting oversight

of EPA, developing legislation related to environmental protection, or debating EPA appropriations. Policy issues include the

implications of recent changes to EPA’s structure, functions, and staffing on the agency’s implementation of its

responsibilities under a variety of pollution control statutes. As EPA implements changes to regulations and numerous

agency programs, driven by executive orders, agency policies, and court decisions, Congress could also consider whether to

amend existing legislation or enact new legislation to specify the agency’s responsibilities and functions in statute. In

addition, when debating future agency appropriations, Congress could consider increasing, decreasing, or maintaining

appropriations levels to align with the agency’s responsibilities and needs for resources and staffing to carry out these

responsibilities.

Congressional Research Service

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

EPA’s Origins................................................................................................................................... 2

Pollution Control Regulation Before EPA Establishment ......................................................... 2

The President’s Advisory Council on Executive Organization ................................................. 3

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 ........................................................................................... 4

Congressional Hearings ...................................................................................................... 6

Congressional Approval ...................................................................................................... 8

Initial EPA Organizational Structure ......................................................................................... 9

EPA’s Role, Mission, and Selected Authorities ............................................................................... 9

EPA Role and Mission............................................................................................................. 10

Selected Pollution Control Statutes EPA Implements ............................................................. 10

EPA Responsibilities Under Other Statutes and Executive Orders ......................................... 12

EPA’s Organizational Structure ..................................................................................................... 13

EPA Headquarters Offices ....................................................................................................... 13

Environmental Media Program Offices ............................................................................ 13

Administrative and Legal Offices ..................................................................................... 13

Other Cross-cutting Offices .............................................................................................. 14

Research Centers and Labs ............................................................................................... 14

EPA Regional Offices and Geographic Offices ....................................................................... 15

EPA Staffing ............................................................................................................................ 16

EPA Appropriations ....................................................................................................................... 17

Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 19

Historical Congressional Action on EPA Status ...................................................................... 19

Recent Administration Actions and EPA Reorganization........................................................ 19

Selected Policy Issues and Options for Congress ................................................................... 23

EPA Organizational Structure and Programs .................................................................... 23

EPA Statutory Authorities and Responsibilities ................................................................ 26

EPA Resources: Appropriations and Staffing.................................................................... 27

Figures

Figure 1. EPA Regions................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 2. EPA-Authorized FTE Ceiling, FY2018-FY2026 and FY2027 Estimated ..................... 17

Figure 3. EPA Total Discretionary Budget Authority, FY1976-FY2024 ....................................... 18

Figure 4. EPA Total Enacted Appropriations, FY2022-FY2026 ................................................... 19

Appendixes

Appendix. Glossary of Abbreviations ........................................................................................... 30

Congressional Research Service

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

Contacts

Author Information........................................................................................................................ 31

Congressional Research Service

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

Introduction

In July 1970, President Nixon proposed the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) to address rising concerns about environmental pollution throughout the United States.

Nixon’s Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 (Reorganization Plan No. 3) proposed transferring

certain environmental duties and functions from existing federal departments and entities to the

new EPA.1 The 91st Congress approved this plan, resulting in the establishment of EPA in

December 1970. Since the founding of the agency, Congress has modified and expanded EPA’s

responsibilities through the amendment of pollution control statutes that were enacted prior to

EPA’s establishment and through additional statutes covering a range of environmental policy

issues.

At the time of EPA’s formation, policymakers and the public were increasingly concerned about

pollution and protection of the environment. Events such as the 1969 Cuyahoga River fire,

multiple oil spills, and increasing urban air pollution, along with concerns about the health

impacts of certain pesticides, served to elevate awareness and calls for federal action. EPA’s

initial functions and responsibilities centered on research and development, as well as monitoring,

to gather scientific data on environmental problems. Subsequently, EPA would develop regulatory

approaches to pollution, such as national standard-setting and enforcement programs based on

amended and new pollution control statutes.

EPA’s responsibilities and programs generally involve the regulation of air quality, water quality,

and chemicals in commerce; the development of regulatory criteria for the management and

disposal of solid and hazardous wastes; and the cleanup of environmental contamination. In

addition, EPA provides financial and technical assistance to states, local governments, and tribes

to assist in administering pollution control programs and complying with certain federal

requirements. Since EPA’s establishment, Congress has supported principles of “cooperative

federalism,” wherein certain statutes allow EPA to grant authority for administering specific

pollution control programs to states and tribes in lieu of EPA, as long as the state or tribe meets

specific program requirements under the relevant statute and regulations.

In recent Congresses, Members have engaged in debates about EPA’s statutory origins, the nature

and scope of the agency’s various regulatory and program authorities, and its organizational

structure. Interest from Members, committees, and congressional staff in EPA’s history, policy,

and programs has increased since the beginning of the second Trump Administration as the

Administration has changed the structure and certain responsibilities of EPA offices and

programs. On September 22, 2025, EPA announced an agency reorganization, including a

reduction in force (RIF) and the elimination of several programs and offices. Recent executive

orders (E.O.s) eliminating EPA programs and activities, changes to EPA grant funding, and

announcements of reconsideration of existing pollution control regulations have also affected

EPA functions and structure. As EPA undertakes numerous changes in programs and organization,

Members may consider the implications of these changes for environmental policies in light of

the policy goals and directives of more than a dozen pollution control statutes EPA implements.

This report describes the process of the establishment of the EPA in the Nixon Administration and

in Congress, including an overview of the executive and legislative origins of EPA; selected

pollution control statutes that EPA administers; the mission and organizational structure of the

agency; and historic staffing levels and appropriations. The report analyzes the interrelationships

1 5 U.S.C., Appendix, Reorganization Plans; Statutes-at-Large 84 Stat. 2086. As a group, reorganization plans may be

found, as amended, at 5 U.S.C. Appendix, Reorganization Plans. Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, as amended, may

also be found as a note to 42 U.S.C. §4321.

Congressional Research Service

1

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

among authorities provided by Congress over time, agency structure and operations, related

regulatory and programmatic responsibilities, staffing, and appropriations. The report examines

recent EPA reorganization efforts and various policy options for EPA oversight. The report

concludes with a discussion of selected policy issues for congressional consideration. Analysis of

specific implications of recent organizational changes or ongoing legal actions involving EPA

responsibilities and functions are beyond the scope of this report. The Appendix to the report

contains a list of acronyms used throughout.

EPA’s Origins

Federal protection of the environment in the United States began in the 1940s as a collection of

distinct statutes addressing a range of releases and environmental media (e.g., air, water, land).

These statutes were implemented for the next few decades by various federal agencies with

different missions and functions. A presidential advisory council recommended to President

Nixon establishing a single independent agency that would be responsible for most of the

pollution control functions of the federal government. Congress held hearings and engaged in

debates throughout 1970 regarding such a reorganization and the specific purposes, functions, and

structure of a new agency. With congressional approval, EPA was established in 1970 with

specific scientific and regulatory responsibilities, along with an initial organizational structure,

staffing and other resources, and annual appropriations.

The context and process for the establishment of EPA as a federal agency may be useful for

examining EPA’s current reorganization and related policy implications. The following sections

review the state of pollution control policies in the mid-20th century, the Nixon Administration’s

original vision for the agency, historic congressional debate on the creation of the agency, and the

initial organizational structure created to carry out the agency’s early responsibilities.

Pollution Control Regulation Before EPA Establishment

Beginning in the 1940s and prior to the establishment of EPA in 1970, several executive branch

agencies, commissions, and councils were responsible for administering federal pollution control

programs. These included the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), the Department

of the Interior (DOI), the Federal Radiation Council (FRC), and the Council on Environmental

Quality (CEQ).

Between 1947 and 1969, Congress enacted statutes establishing pollution control responsibilities

and functions within these agencies.2 These statutes covered a range of pollution control issues

and established initial research, standard-setting, abatement, monitoring, and other activities. In

some cases, the regulations implemented under these statutes addressed a limited range of

pollutants or chemicals, covered limited sources or affected entities, and established different

enforcement frameworks. Over the next several decades, Congress amended these acts to expand

their scope, reflect evolving science, and add and modify responsibilities and programs for

federal agencies—including EPA after its establishment (discussed later in this report, “Selected

Pollution Control Statutes EPA Implements”). Selected statutes from this period included the

following:

2 Prior to these comprehensive pollution control laws, Congress enacted several federal laws addressing specific natural

resources and pollution issues beginning in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, such as The Rivers and Harbors Act of

1899 (P.L. 55-425) and the Oil Pollution Act of 1924 (P.L. 68-238).

Congressional Research Service

2

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947 (FIFRA; P.L.

80-104);

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 (P.L.80-845);

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-703);

The Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 (P.L. 84-159);

The Clean Air Act of 1963 (P.L. 88-206);

The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-272); and

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; P.L. 91-190).

During this period, implementation of pollution control programs and activities—such as

standard-setting, regulatory development, scientific research, and enforcement—was

decentralized. For example, different agencies administered separate regulatory and scientific

programs for water pollution control, air pollution control, solid waste management, regulation of

pesticides, and certain radiation protection functions.3 While CEQ was responsible for certain

government-wide policies and served in an advisory role to the President, there was no formal

process or structure for coordination among these agencies. Each agency, therefore, addressed a

distinct environmental medium or concern (e.g., air pollution, radiation), conducting monitoring,

standard-setting, and enforcement in these areas without consideration for interrelated ecological

systems or the implications of how their policies could affect one another.4 Before the enactment

of these federal statutes, some states and municipalities had enacted their own pollution control

laws, created pollution control departments and commissions, and implemented various

environmental-related programs. For example, some states developed air quality standards for

certain pollutants, enacted air and water pollution control laws and regulations, and established

water resources commissions and local sanitation boards.5 Some of these state laws served as

models for subsequent federal statutes.

The President’s Advisory Council on Executive Organization

In April 1970, the President’s Advisory Council on Executive Organization (also known as the

Ash Council, after the chair of the council) recommended that the pollution control functions that

were spread throughout the executive branch be combined into one new independent agency, the

“Environmental Protection Administration.”6 In its memorandum to President Nixon, the Ash

3 For a comprehensive listing of duties, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “EPA’s Origins: Duties

Transferred to EPA from Other Federal Agencies,” https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/aboutepa/epas-origins-dutiestransferred-epa-other-federal-agencies.html.

4 President Richard M. Nixon, “Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Reorganization Plan No.

3 of 1970,” Congressional Record, vol. 116, part 17 (July 9, 1970), pp. 23379-23381,

https://www.congress.gov/91/crecb/1970/07/09/GPO-CRECB-1970-pt17-6-1.pdf (hereinafter Presidential Message).

5 See, for example, Oregon’s Air Pollution Control Act of 1951 (1951 Or. Laws 425; ORS Chapter 468A), California’s

Porter-Cologne Act (WAT §13020), the South Carolina Pollution Control Act of 1950 (SC Code of Laws Title 49,

Chapter 1), Virginia’s Sanitary District Law of 1938 (Code of VA., Title 21, Chapter 3), and the Maryland Water

Resources Commission (1930; Md. Code Ann, Envir. §5-101 et seq).

6 Memorandum from the President’s Advisory Council on Executive Reorganization to President Richard M. Nixon,

“Federal Organization for Environmental Protection,” April 29, 1970 (hereinafter “Ash Council Memorandum),

https://www.nixonfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/1970_04_29-Federal-Organization-for-EnvironmentalProtection.pdf, p. 124; full text of the memorandum is available at https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/aboutepa/ashcouncil-memo.html.

Congressional Research Service

3

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

Council stated that the current federal government structure was ineffective and inappropriately

organized to address the rising pollution levels and other environmental concerns at the time.7

The council stated that the environment “must be perceived as a unified, interrelated system”8 and

therefore recommended the “merger of key Federal entities dealing with air and water pollution,

pesticides registration and regulation, solid waste management, and radiation standard-setting,

including their closely related monitoring and research facilities.”9 The council noted that it had

considered various alternatives for this agency, such as a new, combined environment and natural

resources department; the merging of certain functions into a new bureau within HEW; or the

creation of a smaller agency within the Executive Office of the President. Ultimately, the

council’s recommendation was to create an independent agency that would become EPA.

According to the council, an independent agency would more effectively balance competing

interests regarding the environment, combine related functions that could be managed efficiently,

and house critical nationwide standard-setting functions in a separate, more objective federal

agency.10 A single agency would also benefit the business community and state and local

governments by simplifying relationships with these partners.11

The council noted that, while it considered the benefits of alternative organizational structures

that used the resources and expertise of existing agencies, it did not recommend these alternatives

because of the potential for agencies with other missions to be biased in the environmental

standard-setting functions that might affect other departments.12 Further, the alternative structures

would not meet the recommended goals of a centralized agency focused on pollution control

across environmental media with the institutional structure designed to conduct a range of

standard-setting activities.13

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970

After the Ash Council submitted its memorandum to President Nixon, the administration prepared

a reorganization plan largely based on the council’s recommendations. On July 9, 1970, President

Nixon submitted Reorganization Plan No. 3 to Congress under the authorities of the

Reorganization Act of 1949 and related statutes.14 These acts authorized the President to direct

certain executive reorganization actions, including establishing new agencies and transferring

certain functions among agencies. The reorganization plan proposed the establishment of EPA as

an independent federal agency, among other provisions. Congress later approved the plan, but

Congress did not establish EPA through a single “origin statute,” as it has some other federal

departments and agencies. As detailed later in this report, however, Congress ratified

7 Ash Council Memorandum.

8 Ash Council Memorandum.

9 Ash Council Memorandum.

10 Ash Council Memorandum.

11 Ash Council Memorandum.

12 Ash Council Memorandum.

13 Ash Council Memorandum.

14 Reorganization Act of 1949, P.L. 81-109; 63 Stat. 203. For further details, see CRS Report R48763, Presidential

Reorganization Authority: Potential Approaches for Congressional Consideration, by Henry B. Hogue.

Congressional Research Service

4

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

reorganization plans as law in 1984.15 Reorganization Plan No. 3, as subsequently amended by

statute, remains in effect.16

In a message accompanying the reorganization plan, President Nixon observed that “arresting

environmental deterioration is of great importance to the quality of life in our country and the

world.”17 The message also provided the rationale for the reorganization and establishment of an

independent EPA, based on the scientific complexity of the natural environment and the

challenges in addressing multiple, and often interrelated, sources and impacts of pollution through

various environmental media. President Nixon announced a “strong, independent agency” that

centralized most federal pollution control duties and functions. President Nixon also stated that

the responsibilities and structure of the new agency were intended to improve coordination and

standardization of programs and activities across the federal government, including cooperation

with agencies performing related functions.18

The message transmitting Reorganization Plan No. 3 established that the principal roles and

functions of EPA would include the following:

- the establishment and enforcement of environmental protection standards consistent with

national environmental goals;

- the conduct of research on the adverse effects of pollution and on methods and equipment

for controlling it, the gathering of information on pollution, and the use of this information

in strengthening pollution control programs and recommending policy changes;

- assisting others, through grants, technical assistance, and other means in arresting

pollution of the environment; and

- assisting the Council on Environmental Quality in developing and recommending to the

President new policies for the protection of the environment.19

Reorganization Plan No. 3, Section 1, established EPA, created the position of administrator as

the head of the agency, created the position of deputy administrator, and created five assistant

administrator positions. Each of these positions was to be appointed by the President with the

advice and consent of the Senate.20

Section 2 of the plan transferred specific functions of other departments and federal entities to the

EPA administrator. For example, programs and functions transferred from HEW to EPA included

the National Air Pollution Control Administration; the Environmental Control Administration

(including the Bureau of Solid Waste Management, the Bureau of Water Hygiene, and the Bureau

of Radiological Health); the Air Quality Advisory Board; and certain functions under the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Functions transferred from DOI to EPA included the

Federal Water Quality Administration and certain other functions under the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act).

Section 2 also transferred to EPA pesticides research and standard-setting programs from HEW

and the pesticides registration program of USDA, as well as elements of the radiation criteria and

15 “A bill to prevent disruption of the structure and functioning of the Government by ratifying all reorganization plans

as a matter of law” (P.L. 98-532).

16 U.S. Congress, House Government Operations Committee, Approving Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, report to

accompany H.Res. 1209, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., September 23, 1970, H.Rept. 91-1464.

17 Presidential Message, pp. 23380-23381.

18 Presidential Message, pp. 23380-23381. Under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 9, §905, a reorganization plan could not add new

functions to federal agencies, but could transfer existing functions among agencies.

19 Presidential Message, p. 23381.

20 Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, §1.

Congressional Research Service

5

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

standards programs from the AEC and all functions of the FRC. In addition, the plan transferred

certain functions for ecological system studies under NEPA from CEQ to EPA. The message

accompanying Reorganization Plan No. 3 stated that EPA would develop competence in other

areas of pollution control not previously addressed by the federal government, such as “the

problem of noise.”21

Section 3 of the plan authorized the EPA Administrator to perform functions transferred to him

“as he shall deem appropriate.”22 Section 4 provided for the transfer of personnel, property,

records, and funding to EPA, as determined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).23

Section 5 authorized the President to appoint interim officers for EPA.24 Section 6 abolished the

FRC and the Federal Water Quality Administration in DOI.25

Congressional Hearings

In 1970, in the 91st Congress, the House Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee

on Executive and Legislative Reorganization, and the Senate Committee on Government

Operations, Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization and Government Research held hearings

on Reorganization Plan No. 3.26 Members heard testimony from Ash Council Chair Roy Ash, the

director of CEQ, officials from OMB, and officials at agencies that would transfer some functions

to EPA, such as DOI, HEW, and USDA.

Testimony from the Ash Council, CEQ, and OMB emphasized several themes in support of a

new, independent executive branch agency charged with pollution control. First, testimony

expressed that a new agency that would consolidate various pollution control functions from

across the federal government was needed to research and regulate increasingly complex and

interrelated pollution problems. Supporters argued that a single agency would enable the federal

government to more effectively study and control pollutants and their impacts in multiple

environmental media and across ecosystems, as well as develop policies in a coordinated and

consistent manner.27 Further, these supporters contended that consolidation of responsibilities into

one lead federal agency would enhance federal relationships with states and industry, providing

consistency and streamlining interactions in regulations, enforcement, federal funding, technical

assistance, and other areas.28

Second, testimony supported the plan’s provision that EPA’s primary mission would be pollution

control. At the time, pollution control and abatement functions were generally one of many

responsibilities of larger federal agencies. Supporters argued that to better accomplish its mission,

the agency’s functions should not include other activities or responsibilities not directly related to

pollution control research, standards, or enforcement. This view reflected Nixon Administration

21 Presidential Message, p. 23380.

22 Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, §3.

23 Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, §4.

24 Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, §5.

25 Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, §6.

26 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative

Reorganization, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 (Environmental Protection Agency), hearings, 91st Cong., 2nd sess.,

July 22 and 23 and August 4, 1970 (hereinafter House Hearings); U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Government

Operations, Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization and Government Research, Reorganization Plans Nos. 3 and 4

of 1970, hearings, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., July 28 and 29 and September 1, 1970 (hereinafter Senate Hearings).

27 House Hearings, pp. 14-16, 42, 44, and 46; Senate Hearings, pp. 85 and 136-139.

28 House Hearings, pp. 18 and 46.

Congressional Research Service

6

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

priorities for pollution control and high public concern about environmental issues at the time,

according to testimony.29

Third, some officials testified that the initial functions of EPA should include only those activities

needed for pollution control standard-setting, research to support standards development, and

enforcement of these standards. According to these officials, the agency should be responsible for

the pollution control functions needed for these specific activities but the agency would not need

to include other pollution or environmental functions of the federal government not directly

related to standard-setting, associated research, or enforcement. For example, they stated the

agency would not need to include some pesticide activities and some radiation activities that were

unrelated to establishing standards.30 Officials also noted that Reorganization Plan No. 3 was

intended to be a beginning for the new agency and that EPA’s functions would likely expand and

evolve over time.31

Fourth, testimony by some officials asserted that EPA should stand as an independent agency,

separate from any federal department. These officials noted that this independence was needed to

separate natural resource use, development, or promotion functions of agencies such as DOI and

USDA from pollution control and enforcement functions. They asserted that the separation would

help avoid potential bias in regulations and enforcement that might occur if these functions were

contained within the same agency.

During the hearings, officials from DOI, HEW, and USDA testified in support of EPA and

Reorganization Plan No. 3’s approach in transferring functions to the new agency.32 For example,

the official serving as both the U.S. Surgeon General and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health

and Scientific Affairs at HEW commented that “a single agency can provide visibility, focus, and

overall direction to the complex problems of pollution control.”33

Committee Members and other Members testifying and providing comments generally supported

Reorganization Plan No. 3 and the rationale provided by CEQ, OMB, and other agencies. These

Members observed that the plan would result in more effective allocation of government

resources, would integrate consideration of multiple types of pollution, and would create a

comprehensive approach to research, standard-setting, and policy formulation.34 Other Members

also noted that the formation of an independent agency focused on pollution control aligned with

priorities for protection of the environment.35 Other Members expressed that having a single,

coordinated agency would be beneficial for the regulated industry.36

During the congressional debates, some Members opposed Reorganization Plan No. 3 and the

establishment of EPA.37 For example, some Members supported enhancing federal efforts for

pollution control, but argued that the authority and organizational structure of an independent

29 Senate Hearings, pp. 85-86.

30 House Hearings, pp. 47 and 137-139.

31 House Hearings, p. 25.

32 House Hearings, pp. 103-106; Senate Hearings, pp. 124-125.

33 House Hearings, p. 106.

34 House Debate, Congressional Record, vol. 116, part 25 (September 28, 1970), pp. 33871-33883 (hereinafter House

Debate).

35 Senate Hearings, pp. 2-40.

36 House Hearings, p. 28.

37 Senate Hearings, p. 129; House Hearings, p. 114. See also U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government

Operations, Approving Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, report to accompany H.Res. 1209, 91st Cong., 2nd sess.,

H.Rept. 91-1464, September 23, 1970.

Congressional Research Service

7

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

agency would not be sufficient to address national pollution concerns.38 Instead, some Members

favored the creation of a federal cabinet-level department that included all federal pollution

control and natural resources management functions. They argued that a larger department could

coordinate all of these functions and would have greater authority within the executive branch

compared to a smaller independent agency.39

Some Members disagreed with the reorganization process itself, arguing that Congress should

have a stronger role in establishing EPA or a similar agency or department, rather than the

executive branch leading the process. These Members argued that “the task or proper

reorganization is so great that it should be undertaken by legislation” rather than through

executive branch reorganization proposals submitted to Congress and that Congress should have

been consulted in developing reorganization plans.40 Other Members expressed concern that EPA

would not receive sufficient resources or funding to accomplish its mission.41 Some Members

expressed concern about the costs associated with a new agency and favored maintaining the

existing decentralized structure of pollution control functions implemented by multiple agencies

to save the cost of setting up and funding a new agency.42

Congressional Approval

The authority under which Reorganization Plan No. 3 was submitted provided that it would go

into effect following 60 days of continuous session after the President had submitted it to

Congress unless at least one of the chambers passed a resolution of its disapproval.43

On September 15, 1970, a resolution of disapproval was introduced in the House.44 The House

Committee on Government Operations, to which the resolution had been referred, reported the

measure unfavorably on September 23, recommending that it not be passed and that the plan be

allowed to go into effect.45 The House debated the resolution on September 28.46 It rejected the

resolution of disapproval and thereby supported the plan to establish EPA.

The Senate Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization,

held hearings on Reorganization Plan No. 3 on July 28 and 29, 1970.47 No resolution of

disapproval was introduced in the Senate. The committee issued a report in support of the plan on

September 29. The report stated, “Although not required by the reorganization statute, this report

38 Senate Hearings, p. 129. For example, some Members noted that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should

also be given responsibility for federal noise pollution control, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,

and certain sewer construction grants. Congress did later direct EPA to regulate noise pollution and develop water

infrastructure financing programs.

39 House Hearings, pp. 114-123.

40 House Debate, p. 33880; House Hearings, p. 116.

41 House Debate, p. 33880.

42 House Debate, p. 33875.

43 Reorganization Act of 1949, P.L. 81-109; 63 Stat. 203.

44 “Public Bills and Resolutions,” Congressional Record, vol. 116, part 23 (September 15, 1970), p. 31914.

45 U.S. Congress, House Government Operations Committee, Approving Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, report to

accompany H.Res. 1209, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., September 23, 1970, H.Rept. 91-1464.

46 Rep. Chester E. Holifield, “Disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970—To Establish an Environmental

Protection Agency as an Independent Entity of Government,” House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 116, part 25

(September 28, 1970), pp. 33871-33884.

47 Senate Hearings. The committee also discussed Reorganization Plan No. 4, to establish the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, on these two days. On September 1, 1970, an additional hearing was held, during which

only this latter plan was discussed.

Congressional Research Service

8

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

is filed so that the Senate may be informed concerning the provisions of the plan and the result of

the committee’s consideration thereof.”48

With no resolution of disapproval from the House or Senate, the plan went into effect 146

calendar days after its submission, on December 2, 1970.49 In this way, the plan was selfexecuting; it did not require further legislative or executive action to take effect. On the same day,

the Senate confirmed William Ruckelshaus as the first administrator of EPA.50 Congress later

ratified and affirmed Reorganization Plan No. 3, along with other existing executive

reorganization plans in 1984, in response to a Supreme Court decision regarding the validity of

existing reorganization plans.51 All reorganization plans thus ratified and affirmed may be found

in the Appendix to Title 5 of the U.S. Code.

Initial EPA Organizational Structure

Shortly after the confirmation of Administrator Ruckelshaus, an EPA order and regulations set out

the initial framework for the agency’s operations. EPA Order 1110.2—Initial Organization of the

EPA, issued on December 4, 1970, outlined specific agency positions and offices.52 These

included the positions of Administrator and Deputy Administrator, the Office of the

Administrator, and four Director positions within the Office of the Administrator. The order

created the positions and duties of three Assistant Administrators: for Planning and Management;

Standards and Enforcement and General Counsel; and Research and Monitoring. The order also

established five EPA program offices to administer their respective functions: the Water Quality

Office, Air Pollution Control Office, Pesticides Office, Radiation Office, and Solid Wastes Office.

Order 1110.2 also established 10 regional EPA offices. As discussed in detail later in this report,

the structure and titles of some EPA offices have changed since this initial organizational

structure.

EPA’s Role, Mission, and Selected Authorities

Reorganization Plan No. 3 provided the foundation for EPA’s initial purposes, responsibilities,

mission, and general authorities under existing pollution control statutes. These topics are closely

related to the current EPA organizational structure, recent staffing levels, and agency

appropriations discussed later in this report, which together influence EPA’s capacity to carry out

its responsibilities.

48 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Government Operations, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, Providing for the

Establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., September 29, 1970, S.Rept. 91-1250, p.

1.

49 The period included days when Congress was not “in continuous session” under the statutory definition.

50 EPA, “EPA’s Administrators,” https://www.epa.gov/history/epas-administrators#william-d-ruckelshaus.

51 P.L. 98-532; 98 Stat. 2705. In 1983, the Supreme Court had ruled in INS v. Chadha that the legislative veto process

was unconstitutional. 462 U.S. 919 (1983). The Court’s ruling in INS v. Chadha raised concerns that the validity of

existing reorganization plans, all of which had gone into effect under reorganization authority with legislative veto

provisions, might be called into question. Congress passed the ratifying and affirming legislation to remove such

potential doubt about reorganization plans. The plans, like statutes enacted through the legislative process, have been

amended, and some have been repealed entirely or in part. Sections of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 providing for

specific EPA leadership positions, for example, were amended in 1983. P.L. 98-80; 97 Stat. 485.

52 EPA, EPA Order 1110.2—Initial Organization of the EPA, December 4, 1970, https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/

aboutepa/epa-order-11102-initial-organization-epa.html.

Congressional Research Service

9

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

EPA Role and Mission

Upon its establishment, EPA’s role included several purposes and functions, which were generally

based on those set out in Reorganization Plan No. 3. In a December 1970 EPA press release,

Administrator Ruckelshaus expressed his view of the agency’s role at that time:

EPA is an independent agency. It has no obligation to promote agriculture or commerce;

only the critical obligation to protect and enhance the environment. It does not have a

narrow charter to deal with only one aspect of a deteriorating environment; rather it has a

broad responsibility for research, standard-setting, monitoring and enforcement with

regard to five environmental hazards; air and water pollution, solid waste disposal,

radiation, and pesticides.53

EPA’s role and functions are also codified in 40 C.F.R. Part 1, which states that “the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency permits coordinated and effective governmental action to

assure the protection of the environment by abating and controlling pollution on a systematic

basis.”54

EPA’s currently stated mission is “to protect human health and the environment.”55 EPA’s mission

was not specifically established through pollution control statutes or other statutes; the agency

created it to comply with general federal requirements to develop agency missions and strategic

plans.56 EPA enacts its mission through implementing a range of pollution control statutes, which

are discussed in the next section.

Since the establishment of EPA, Congress has directed the agency to work closely with states,

tribes, and local governments. In some statutes, Congress has established formal processes for

delegating EPA’s program and enforcement authority for specific programs through a

“cooperative federalism” approach. Under this approach, EPA conducts scientific research, sets

national minimum standards, establishes minimum requirements for state program delegation,

promulgates federal regulations, enforces federal statutes, and provides technical and financial

assistance to states and tribes. States, and in some cases tribes, with delegated authority,

implement specific pollution control programs, issue permits, conduct inspections and

enforcement, and allocate federal financial assistance to other entities, as provided under state

laws and regulations. Today, states hold the primary responsibility for implementing many federal

pollution control programs, such as certain Clean Air Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act (CWA)

permitting, underground injection control programs, hazardous waste management programs, and

other permits and programs.

Selected Pollution Control Statutes EPA Implements

EPA implements pollution control statutes that existed prior to its creation in 1970, as well as

several statutes enacted from December 1970 through the present. These statutes cover multiple

environmental media and a range of pollution control efforts, such as air and water quality, waste

management, cleanup of contaminated sites, environmental permitting, and regulation of

chemicals in commerce, among others. As a regulatory agency, EPA is responsible for

promulgating regulations for various pollution control programs and activities under several of

53 EPA, “EPA’s First Administrator on the Establishment of EPA,” press release, December 16, 1970,

https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/aboutepa/epas-first-administrator-establishment-epa.html.

54 40 C.F.R. §1.3.

55 EPA, “Our Mission and What We Do,” updated October 20, 2025, https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-andwhat-we-do.

56 5 U.S.C. §306.

Congressional Research Service

10

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

these statutes. Other agency activities include setting and reviewing environmental standards;

conducting scientific research; enforcing federal environmental laws and regulations; and

providing technical and financial assistance to states, tribes, and local governments.

The list below summarizes the major pollution control statutes that EPA administers. These

statutes have been amended over time, including significant changes and additions to several of

the statutes. EPA does not administer all the titles or provisions of some of these statutes. In

addition, numerous other statutes include additional EPA authorities and responsibilities,

including one-time mandates such as delivery of reports to Congress or administration of a shortterm program.57 Therefore, the statutes listed in this section do not represent all of EPA’s statutory

authorities.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

The Clean Air Act (CAA; 42 U.S.C. §§7401-7671q) authorizes EPA to set

mobile source limits, ambient air quality standards, hazardous air pollutant

emission standards, standards for new pollution sources, and significant

deterioration requirements; to identify areas that do not attain federal ambient air

quality standards set under the act; to administer a cap-and-trade program to

reduce acid rain; and to phase out substances that deplete Earth’s stratospheric

ozone layer.

The Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. §§1251-1389) authorizes the regulation

and enforcement of requirements that govern pollution discharges into U.S.

waters and authorizes financial assistance for wastewater treatment plant

construction and improvements.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA; 42 U.S.C. §§9601-9675) and the Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act (SARA) focus on the cleanup of contamination resulting

from the past release of hazardous substances.

The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA; 42

U.S.C. §§11001-11050) requires industrial reporting of toxic releases and

encourages chemical emergency response planning.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA; 7 U.S.C.

§136-136y) requires EPA to regulate the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides

in the United States through registration and labeling of pesticide products.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321-4370m-12)

directs federal agencies to incorporate environmental considerations in their

planning and decisionmaking, among other provisions.

The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA; 33 U.S.C.

§§1401-1445; 16 U.S.C. §1431-1447f; 33 U.S.C. §§2801-2805) regulates the

intentional ocean disposal of materials and authorizes related research. Title I of

MPRSA, which includes permit and enforcement provisions of the law, is often

referred to as the Ocean Dumping Act.

The Oil Pollution Act (OPA, primarily codified at U.S.C. §2701 et seq.) sets out

requirements for oil spill prevention and preparedness, authorizes a liability and

compensation regime for oil spills, and specifies the federal government’s

authorities for responding to oil spills, among other provisions.

57 For example, several National Defense Authorization Acts and appropriation acts in recent decades have authorized

EPA programs and activities.

Congressional Research Service

11

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

•

•

•

•

The Pollution Prevention Act (PPA; 42 U.S.C. §§13101-13109) authorizes

various mechanisms intended to prevent pollution by reducing the generation of

pollutants at the point of origin.

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA; 42 U.S.C. §300f-300j-27) authorizes

EPA to establish primary drinking water standards, regulate underground

injection disposal practices, and administer a groundwater control program.

The Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA; 42 U.S.C. §§6901-6992k), as

substantially amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA), governs the regulation of solid and hazardous wastes and corrective

actions to address improper waste management practices.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA; 15 U.S.C. §§2601 et seq.)

establishes the federal framework for regulating the lifecycle of commercial

chemicals to control unreasonable risks to human health and the environment,

among other provisions.

EPA Responsibilities Under Other Statutes and Executive Orders

In addition to the pollution control statutes above, Congress has provided EPA with certain

responsibilities under numerous other statutes. The list below, maintained by the agency,

identifies statutes that are primarily implemented by other federal agencies but include selected

provisions administered by EPA.58

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

American Innovation and Manufacturing Act (42 U.S.C. §7675)

Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. §§2011-2297h-13)

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544)

Energy Independence and Security Act (42 U.S.C. §17001 et seq.)

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (primarily codified at 42 U.S.C. §§15801 et seq.)

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (primarily codified at 21 U.S.C. §§301399)

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. §3701)

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. §10101 et seq.)

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. Chapter 15)

Shore Protection Act of 1988 (33 U.S.C. §2601 et seq.)

EPA also has responsibilities under general management laws and E.O.s that direct federal

executive branch agencies to follow certain requirements and processes, such as the

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §551-559), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5

U.S.C. §§1001-1014), and E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” among others. The

details of these statutes and E.O.s are beyond the scope of this report.

58 EPA, “Laws and Executive Orders,” updated February 18, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-

executive-orders. The lists of statutes in this report do not include other statutes that amended the listed statutes to add

or change EPA responsibilities.

Congressional Research Service

12

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

EPA’s Organizational Structure

Since EPA’s establishment, some components of its basic organizational structure have remained,

while others have changed over time. EPA’s structure has historically included headquarters

offices, regional offices, research centers, and labs. Over time, EPA has added and removed

offices, changed office names, and changed the titles and responsibilities of assistant

administrator positions within the scope of existing statutes. Within this framework, EPA has

created and implemented a variety of programs and activities at the specific direction of Congress

and within general agency authorities. This section discusses the current overall organizational

structure of the agency.

EPA Headquarters Offices

As of May 2026, EPA’s headquarters, located in Washington, DC, includes 10 offices covering

environmental media programs, administrative and legal programs, and other cross-cutting

operations. The offices and their general responsibilities are listed below.59

Environmental Media Program Offices

•

•

•

•

The Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) is responsible for administering

programs related to air quality standards, air pollution, radiation exposure, and

stratospheric ozone.

The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) is

responsible for regulating pesticides, evaluating new and existing chemicals and

their risks, and pollution prevention programs.

The Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) is responsible for

cleaning up contaminated sites, emergency response, solid and hazardous waste

management programs, regulation of underground storage tanks, and the

Brownfields program.

The Office of Water (OW) is responsible for programs related to water quality,

drinking water, groundwater, wetlands protection, and marine and estuary

protection.

Administrative and Legal Offices

•

•

•

The Office of the Administrator includes offices responsible for administrative

services, applied science and environmental solutions, civil rights, congressional

and intergovernmental relations, policy management, external affairs, and

national security.

The Office of Finance and Administration (OFA) is responsible for agency

budget and financial operations, buildings and facilities, grants management,

information technology, human capital, procurement, and other functions.

The Office of General Counsel (OGC) provides legal advice to the agency on

implementation of pollution control statutes, ethics, the Freedom of Information

Act, and other legal issues.

59 EPA, “EPA Organization Chart,” updated January 8, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-organization-chart.

The responsibilities listed for each office are illustrative and are not comprehensive lists of all programs, activities, or

responsibilities.

Congressional Research Service

13

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

•

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducts independent audits and

investigations of agency programs and activities.

Other Cross-cutting Offices

•

•

The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is responsible

for compliance activities and civil and criminal enforcement.

The Office of International and Tribal Affairs (OITA) is responsible for

international policies, engagement with tribes, and environmental protection in

Indian country.

In February 2025, EPA notified Congress of the elimination of the Office of Research and

Development (ORD), which had been responsible for conducting scientific research for the

agency, such as monitoring and modeling of pollutants and contaminants within the environment,

assessing the toxicity of various pollutants and contaminants on human or ecological health, and

developing and evaluating environmental remediation technologies.60 See “Recent Administration

Actions and EPA Reorganization” later in this report for more information.

Throughout the agency’s history, the number and some titles of program offices have changed.

For example, in 2010, EPA renamed the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances as

the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP); in 2015, the agency renamed

the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response as the Office of Land and Emergency

Management (OLEM).61

Research Centers and Labs

Since its establishment, EPA has operated research centers and laboratories to carry out the

agency’s scientific work in various environmental media as directed by more than a dozen

pollution control statutes (discussed above). With the agency’s September 2025 announcement of

the elimination of ORD, the current status of the research centers and labs is unclear. EPA has

released limited details on specific staffing levels, closures, consolidations, and the specific

programs and activities that are continuing, being changed or limited, or being eliminated.62 In its

FY2027 congressional budget justification, EPA proposed closure of at least one lab and

consolidation of other labs.63

60 House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Democrats, “Ranking Members Lofgren and Amo Slam EPA for

Elimination of Office of Research and Development,” press release, February 13, 2026, https://democratsscience.house.gov/news/press-releases/ranking-members-lofgren-and-amo-slam-epa-for-elimination-of-office-ofresearch-and-development. See also CRS Insight IN12599, EPA’s Proposed Reorganization of Its Office of Research

and Development, by Jerry H. Yen and Angela C. Jones. As of May 26, 2026, ORD was still listed as a program office

in the organization chart on EPA’s website (https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-organization-chart).

61 EPA, “Prevention, Pesticides, Toxic Substances: Basic Information,” April 1, 2010, https://web.archive.org/web/

20100401091214/http://www.epa.gov/oppts/pubs/basic_info.html; EPA, “Name Change from the Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) to the Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM),” 80 Federal

Register 77575, December 15, 2015.

62 For details, see CRS Insight IN12599, EPA’s Proposed Reorganization of Its Office of Research and Development,

by Jerry H. Yen and Angela C. Jones.

63 EPA, “Fiscal Year 2027 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations,” April 2026,

https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2026-04/epa-fy27-congressional-justification.pdf, p. 27.

Congressional Research Service

14

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

Five research centers that had been operated by ORD have conducted basic and applied research

supporting the development of EPA standards and guidance:64

•

•

•

•

•

The Office of Science Advisor, Policy, and Engagement;

The Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling;

The Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure;

The Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment; and

The Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response

EPA also has operated four program office labs that have supported the agency’s enforcement

efforts and regulatory implementation. Three OAR labs are the National Air and Radiation

Environmental Laboratory, the National Center for Radiation Field Operations, and the National

Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory.65 A fourth lab, the National Enforcement Investigations

Center, provides forensic support for EPA criminal and civil enforcement.

EPA Regional Offices and Geographic Offices

EPA Order 1110.2 provided that EPA’s structure would include 10 regional offices. EPA

implemented a regional organizational structure and adopted the regional headquarters cities used

by the Environmental Health Service, a part of HEW before that agency was eliminated.66 The 10

EPA regions, shown in Figure 1, have not changed since the establishment of the agency. Each

regional office is responsible for implementing certain EPA national programs and activities

within the states and territories contained in that region. Regional offices play a significant role in

enforcement of federal environmental laws, permitting, and approvals. These offices also work

directly with industry, state and local governments, and public and private groups within their

respective regions.

64 EPA, “Research Centers, Programs, and Science Advisory Organizations,” updated November 19, 2025,

https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/research-centers-programs-and-science-advisory-organizations (hereinafter EPA,

“Research Centers.”)

65 EPA, “Research Centers.”

66 Dennis C. Williams, “Why Are Our Regional Offices and Labs Located Where They Are? A Historical Perspective

on Siting,” EPA, March 23, 1993, https://www.epa.gov/history/why-are-our-regional-offices-and-labs-located-wherethey-are-historical-perspective-siting.

Congressional Research Service

15

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

Figure 1. EPA Regions

Source: CRS, adapted from Environmental Protection Agency, “Regional and Geographic Offices,” updated

April 10, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/regional-and-geographic-offices.

Note: Regions 1 through 10 are indicated by a number and the group of states and territories shaded the same

color.

EPA has, over time, established offices with a specific geographic focus to address environmental

issues of concern in a defined region of the United States. These offices conduct activities such as

implementing specific EPA science and regulatory programs for a geographic area or water body,

coordinating federal pollution control initiatives with a regional focus, and coordinating site

management and clean-up with states and tribes. The offices are

•

•

•

•

Chesapeake Bay Program Office (Annapolis, MD);

Great Lakes National Program Offices (Chicago);

EPA Region 4 Gulf of America Division (Gulfport, MS); and

Mountains Deserts and Plains Office (Lakewood, CO).

In addition to the program office labs described above, EPA has also operated 10 regional labs,

located around the country, that have conducted a range of scientific work, including field and

laboratory studies to support implementation of national EPA programs.

EPA Staffing

EPA’s responsibilities and operations are supported by the staff employed throughout the agency’s

headquarters, regional offices, and labs. EPA’s work is also supported through contract

employees, who perform a variety of research, scientific, and programmatic duties. The number

of employees, as well as their individual and collective experience and expertise, could play a

role in the agency’s capacity to carry out programs and activities as directed by Congress.

Congressional Research Service

16

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

Staffing levels are generally left to the discretion of EPA, including hiring, staff distribution

among offices and programs, and RIFs and transfers of staff among offices, such as those

conducted in recent agency reorganizations. Congress does not have a direct role in setting the

number of EPA full-time-equivalent staff (FTEs) or how FTEs are distributed among its offices

and programs; however, congressional directives and appropriations could influence agency

decisions regarding staffing.

EPA’s staffing levels have fluctuated since the agency was established. EPA-authorized FTE

ceiling levels (a management cap of the number of FTEs at the agency based on the total amount

of work hours performed by employees at the agency in a year) peaked in FY1999, with 18,110

FTEs.67 In the past decade, FTE levels have varied from a high of 15,130 in FY2024, to a low of

12,312 in FY2026.68 Figure 2 shows the agency FTE ceiling levels from FY2018 through

FY2027 (estimated). In terms of staff (rather than FTEs), according to EPA, the total number of

staff decreased from 16,155 to 12,448 within 2025.69

Figure 2. EPA-Authorized FTE Ceiling, FY2018-FY2026 and FY2027 Estimated

Source: CRS, using information from EPA Budgets in Brief, FY2018-FY2027.

Note: FTE ceiling indicates a management cap of the number of FTEs at the agency based on the total amount of

work hours performed by employees in a year.

EPA Appropriations

Congress has provided appropriations for EPA since the agency’s establishment in 1970. Since

FY2006, when certain congressional committees were reorganized, Congress has funded EPA in

the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bills.

67 EPA, Summary of the 2003 Budget, EPA-205-S-02-001, February 2002, https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/

P100AB3T.PDF?Dockey=P100AB3T.PDF; and CRS analysis of EPA budget summaries from 1980 through 2016.

68 EPA, FY2026 EPA Budget in Brief, May 2025, p. 17, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-05/fy-2026epa-bib.pdf.

69 EPA, “EPA Announces Reduction in Force, Reorganization Efforts to Save Taxpayers Nearly Three-Quarters of a

Billion Dollars,” press release, July 18, 2025, https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-reduction-forcereorganization-efforts-save-taxpayers-nearly-three.

Congressional Research Service

17

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

Since the early 1980s, EPA’s appropriation levels have been relatively steady, between

approximately $11 billion and $13 billion when adjusted for inflation, with some exceptions. For

example, Congress provided significant supplemental appropriations to EPA in FY2009 in the

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5) and from FY2022 to FY2026 in the

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) and the measure known as the

Inflation Reduction Act (IRA; P.L. 117-169). The IIJA provided emergency supplemental

appropriations to EPA totaling $60.9 billion over five years, on top of annual appropriations, for a

variety of programs, such as water pollution control, solid waste management, site cleanup, and

grants for water infrastructure, contaminated site redevelopment, pollution prevention, and clean

air programs. The IRA provided $41.6 billion to EPA for FY2022 for new and expanded climate

and air-pollution-related programs, such as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, grants for

addressing air pollution, vehicle pollution programs, and methane emissions reduction, among

other programs.70 See Figure 3 for inflation adjusted and nominal EPA total budget authority

from FY1976 through FY2024 (for readability and scale, the figure does not include $41.6 billion

in supplemental appropriations for EPA for FY2022 in the IRA).

Figure 3. EPA Total Discretionary Budget Authority, FY1976-FY2024

Source: CRS, based on the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Budget of the United States

Government Fiscal Year 2026, Historical Tables, Table 5.4. CRS adjusted for inflation using OMB deflators

presented in Table 10.1. FY2024 is the last fiscal year for which information is available from OMB.

Notes: Actual amounts reflect regular annual and supplemental appropriations, including supplemental

appropriations in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58). For readability and scale, the figure

does not include $41.6 billion in supplemental appropriations for EPA for FY2022 in the measure known as the

Inflation Reduction Act (P.L. 117-169).

In recent years, Congress has funded EPA through a combination of regular annual appropriations

and supplemental appropriations, including the IIJA and IRA. Figure 4 shows the distribution of

total enacted EPA appropriations since FY2022 among these acts. For FY2026 (the most recent

enacted appropriations), Congress provided $8.82 billion in appropriations to EPA. On top of

these annual appropriations, the IIJA had provided an additional $12.01 billion for EPA in

advance appropriations for FY2026, for total appropriations of $20.82 billion for EPA for

FY2026.

70 The measure known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21) Title VI, repealed authorizations and rescinded

unobligated IRA funding for many climate and air programs authorized and funded in that act.

Congressional Research Service

18

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

Figure 4. EPA Total Enacted Appropriations, FY2022-FY2026

Source: CRS, using information from P.L. 117-58, P.L. 117-103, P.L. 117-169, P.L. 117-328, P.L. 118-42, P.L. 1194, and P.L. 119-74.

Notes: IIJA = Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act; IRA = Inflation Reduction Act. P.L. 117-328 provided

$1.67 billion in supplemental appropriations for EPA for FY2023.

More information on recent trends and policy issues for EPA appropriations can be found in CRS

In Focus IF13191, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2026 Appropriations, by Angela C.

Jones.

Issues for Congress

The origins, organizational structure, and authorities of EPA have been topics of increasing

interest in Congress in recent months, particularly given recent administration actions that could

affect the agency and its program implementation. Prior Congresses have also debated the status

and responsibilities of the agency. This section outlines historical congressional action on EPA

status, recent Trump Administration and internal agency reorganization efforts, and policy issues

and options for congressional consideration.

Historical Congressional Action on EPA Status

Since the establishment of the agency, Congress has considered changes to EPA’s status as an

independent agency, with possible implications for implementation of its authorities and

organizational structure. Debates have primarily focused on whether EPA should remain an

independent agency or be elevated to a Cabinet-level department. In the 100th through the 109th

Congresses, Members introduced at least 22 bills to redesignate EPA as the Department of

Environmental Protection led by a Secretary of Environmental Protection.71 At least one bill, H.R.

861 in the 115th Congress, would have eliminated EPA.

Recent Administration Actions and EPA Reorganization

Since the beginning of the second Trump Administration, in January 2025, President Trump and

senior Administration officials have implemented numerous changes to the functions,

organizational structure, and priorities of multiple executive branch agencies, including EPA. The

71 See, for example, the most recent of these bills, H.R. 5078 in the 109th Congress. CRS searched Congress.gov for

“Department of Environmental Protection” since the 93rd Congress.

Congressional Research Service

19

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

Administration has initiated these changes through repeal of E.O.s, issuance of new E.O.s, and

agency directives.

EPA has stated that the agency has taken these actions “to improve the effectiveness and

efficiency of its operations and to better align core statutory requirements with its organizational

structure.”72 Further, the agency has stated that “this will result in a structure with improved

capacity to provide clean air, land, and water and advance cooperative federalism.”73 For

example, EPA cites efficiencies and federal cost savings achieved through RIFs, consolidations,

and elimination of programs.74

While some resulting changes to EPA’s organizational structure have been made clear through

announcements about the elimination or creation of new offices, the status of other changes and

certain agency programs, activities, and staffing levels remains unclear. For example, there is

limited public information on the details of new offices such as the Office of Applied Science and

Environmental Solutions (OASES) and OFA; how former ORD functions are being carried out in

the program offices; how the agency is implementing its responsibilities given lower FTE levels;

and the status of numerous IRA and environmental-justice-related grant programs that are the

subject of ongoing litigation. EPA’s reorganization efforts may be of interest to Congress in its

oversight role as it assesses agency staffing, funding, and activities to implement various

environmental pollution control statutes. The following section describes selected E.O.s and

announcements; it is not a comprehensive listing of all recently proposed or implemented changes

to EPA’s organizational structure or programs.

Within his first few days in office, President Trump signed several E.O.s impacting EPA offices,

organizational structure, and functions. For example, E.O. 14148, “Initial Rescissions of Harmful

Executive Orders and Actions,” revoked E.O. 14008 and E.O. 14096, two Biden Administration

E.O.s related to environmental justice, among others.75 E.O. 14173, “Ending Illegal

Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” revoked E.O. 12898, the first E.O.

focused on environmental justice issued by President Clinton in 1994, among other directives.76

E.O. 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,”

directed federal agencies to “terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law, all DEI, DEIA,

and ‘environmental justice’ offices and positions.”77 Together, the recent E.O.s could have

72 EPA, Fiscal Year Y2026 Justification of Appropriations Estimates to the Committee on Appropriations, Addendum:

EPA Consolidations, Reorganizations, Realignments, or Other Transfers of Resources, September 2025 (hereinafter

EPA FY2026 Addendum), https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-09/fy26-cj-addendum-consolidationreorganization.pdf, p. 1.

73 EPA FY2026 Addendum, p. 1.

74 EPA, “EPA Terminates Biden’s Environmental Justice, DEI Arms of Agency,” press release, March 12, 2025,

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-terminates-bidens-environmental-justice-dei-arms-agency; EPA, “EPA

Announces Reduction in Force, Reorganization Efforts to Save Taxpayers Nearly Three-Quarters of a Billion Dollars,”

press release, July 18, 2025, https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-reduction-force-reorganization-effortssave-taxpayers-nearly-three.

75 Executive Order (E.O.) 14148, “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” 90 Federal Register

8237, January 28, 2025; E.O. 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” 86 Federal Register 7619,

February 1, 2021; E.O. 14096, “Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All,” 88 Federal

Register 25251, April 26, 2023. For more information on these executive orders, see CRS In Focus IF12922, Trump

Administration Environmental-Justice-Related Executive Orders: Potential Implications for EPA Programs, by Angela

C. Jones.

76 E.O. 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” 90 Federal Register 8633,

January 31, 2025; E.O. 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations,” 59 Federal Register 7629, February 16, 1994.

77 E.O. 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” 90 Federal Register 8339,

January 29, 2025.

Congressional Research Service

20

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

implications for agency structure and programs, environmental justice programs, research and

development reorganization, and agency funding and staffing levels, among other issues.

EPA submitted an addendum to its FY2026 Congressional Budget Justification detailing

reorganization plans in numerous offices, including administrative and budget offices, and several

program offices.78 In the addendum, EPA stated that the agency was implementing the

reorganizations, consolidations, realignments, and transfers of resources under the direction of

E.O. 14151 and E.O. 14210, “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government

Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative.”79

Throughout 2025, EPA implemented a series of reorganization efforts that included most agency

program and administrative offices, such as creating and eliminating program offices and smaller

offices; transferring programs and functions across offices; restructuring and consolidating offices

and programs; creating new programs; and reducing and transferring staff, among other changes.

A timeline of announcements of selected reorganization activities is outlined below.

•

•

•

March 2025. EPA announced several organizational changes to comply with

these E.O. directives. Specifically, the agency announced that it would “terminate

the Biden-Harris Administration’s Environmental Justice and Diversity, Equity,

and Inclusion arms of the agency.”80 The agency eliminated the Office of

Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights (OEJECR), which was

established in 2022 under the Biden Administration.81

May 2025. EPA announced organizational changes that would affect the Office

of the Administrator, OAR, OCSPP, and OW.82 EPA stated that the reorganization

“will bring much needed efficiencies to incorporate science into our

rulemakings,” focus environmental protection work, and save at least $300

million annually.83 EPA announced the creation of a new Water Cybersecurity

and Infrastructure Resiliency Center in OW, the intention to shift scientific and

engineering staff from ORD to other program offices, and the creation of OASES

in the Office of the Administrator, among other changes.84

July 2025. EPA announced several additional changes to agency organizational

structure, including creation of the new OFA, changes to the structure and

priorities of OECA, and changes within OLEM, including consolidating offices

and moving certain emergency response functions to the Office of the

78 EPA FY2026 Addendum.

79 EPA FY2026 Addendum; E.O. 14151; E.O. 14210, “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government

Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative,” 90 Federal Register 9669, February 14, 2025.

80 EPA, “EPA Terminates Biden’s Environmental Justice, DEI Arms of Agency.”

81 EPA has moved functions of the former Office of External Civil Rights to the Office of the Administrator. For more

information on the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, see CRS Report R47920, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Justice Activities and Programs, by Angela C. Jones.

82 EPA, “EPA Announces Next Phase of Organizational Improvements to Better Integrate Science into Agency Offices,

Deliver Clean Air, Land, and Water to All Americans,” press release, May 2, 2025, https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/

epa-announces-next-phase-organizational-improvements-better-integrate-science-agency.

83 EPA, “EPA Announces Next Phase of Organizational Improvements to Better Integrate Science into Agency Offices,

Deliver Clean Air, Land, and Water to All Americans.”

84 EPA, “EPA Announces Next Phase of Organizational Improvements to Better Integrate Science into Agency Offices,

Deliver Clean Air, Land, and Water to All Americans.”

Congressional Research Service

21

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

•

•

Administrator.85 EPA also announced a RIF focused on ORD employees.

According to the announcement, EPA expected the RIF and ORD reorganization

efforts to reduce overall agency spending.86

September 2025. According to reporting, on September 22, 2025, EPA

Administrator Zeldin sent an internal memo to EPA staff announcing an overall

agency reorganization plan.87 The reorganization is to be implemented by OFA.88

February 2026. EPA notified Congress of the elimination of ORD as of March

2026 and the transfer of some of its functions and staff to other EPA program

offices.89 According to reporting, the remaining ORD employees at the time

(approximately 100) were transferred to OAR, OLEM, and OW.90

In EPA’s FY2027 Congressional Budget Justification, the agency proposed a range of ongoing

reorganization activities in the context of appropriations requests, such as changes to its

organization, workforce, functions, and programs. For example, EPA proposed consolidations and

realignments in OECA, OGC, OITA, and Regional Offices to enhance coordination, consolidate

management of staff, improve staff-to-supervisor ratios, and add a new “mission-aligned

framework designed to strengthen leadership, accountability, and program execution,” among

other goals, according to the agency.91

In the budget justification, EPA also proposed an FTE ceiling of 12,500 for FY2027, an increase

of approximately 188 FTEs from FY2026, but approximately 1,630 FTEs below the FY2025

level.92 The agency also proposed $3 million for “workforce reshaping” efforts intended to

“effectively align and redistribute based on program priorities, resource reallocations, and

technological advances.”93

The agency proposed additional reorganization-related activities, including modernizing systems

for human resources and financial management, changes to grant management processes, and

consolidating and releasing office space.94 Regarding research and development space after the

closure of ORD, EPA proposed closure of at least one laboratory in Houston and consolidation of

85 EPA, “EPA Announces Next Phase of Organization Improvements to Better Fulfill Statutory Obligations to Deliver

Clean Air, Land, and Water to All Americans, Modernize Mission Support,” press release, July 17, 2025,

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-next-phase-organizational-improvements-better-fulfill-statutory.

86 EPA, “EPA Announces Next Phase of Organization Improvements to Better Fulfill Statutory Obligations to Deliver

Clean Air, Land, and Water to All Americans, Modernize Mission Support.”

87 Inside EPA, “EPA Formally Launches Agency Reorganization, Opening Door to RIFs,” September 22, 2025,

https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-formally-launches-agency-reorganization-opening-door-rifs.

88 Inside EPA, “EPA Formally Launches Agency Reorganization, Opening Door to RIFs.”

89 House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Democrats, “Ranking Members Lofgren and Amo Slam EPA for

Elimination of Office of Research and Development,” press release, February 13, 2026, https://democratsscience.house.gov/news/press-releases/ranking-members-lofgren-and-amo-slam-epa-for-elimination-of-office-ofresearch-and-development.

90 Inside EPA, “EPA Reassigns Former ORD Staff in Move Seen as Blocking Reconstitution,” April 10, 2026,

https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-reassigns-former-ord-staff-move-seen-blocking-reconstitution.

91 EPA, Fiscal Year 2027 Congressional Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations,

https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2026-04/epa-fy27-congressional-justification.pdf, p. 82.

92 EPA, FY2027 Budget in Brief, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2026-04/00_fy-2027bib_combined_final.pdf, p. 17.

93 EPA, FY2027 Justification of Appropriations, p. 106.

94 EPA, FY2027 Justification of Appropriations.

Congressional Research Service

22

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

EPA-owned laboratory space in Oklahoma, but other changes to former ORD laboratories and

research programs are unclear.95

Selected Policy Issues and Options for Congress

Congress could consider several policy issues when conducting oversight of EPA, deliberating

new or amended legislation related to its pollution control responsibilities, or setting future

agency appropriations levels. Selected policy issues include the status and plans for EPA

structural reorganization; EPA’s statutory authorities and responsibilities; and the underlying

levels of agency appropriations, staffing, and other resources.

EPA Organizational Structure and Programs

As detailed earlier in this report, in the last year, EPA has undergone a range of organizational

changes throughout the agency, including adding new national program offices, eliminating

offices and programs, and transferring functions and staff among programs and offices. EPA is

also planning numerous closures and consolidations of office space, labs, and certain program

activities, as proposed in the agency’s FY2027 Congressional Budget Justification discussed

earlier in this report.96

Generally, executive branch agencies have some discretion to reorganize within the statutory

limits established by Congress, such as transferring and delegating functions within an agency.97

The bounds of EPA’ s discretion depends on the specific authorizations and provisions in the

statutes established by Congress over time. Some specific reorganization actions involve open

questions and legal issues beyond the scope of this report.

General Considerations for Structural and Programmatic Reorganization98

EPA reorganization could have no or little impact on agency implementation of programs or

activities established in statute; or it could have benefits, such as lower costs and streamlined

operations. Alternatively, the reorganization could reduce EPA’s capacity to meet its full statutory

responsibilities, if the reorganization were to limit the agency’s systems, infrastructure, staff, or

expertise to carry out those responsibilities. Congress could consider how EPA’s structural and

programmatic reorganization, such as office closures, creation of new offices, transfers of

program functions and staff, consolidations of program functions and staff, and RIFs affect the

agency’s capacity to implement the full range of responsibilities required in statute.

Policymakers and stakeholders have offered various arguments regarding EPA reorganization.

Some support the EPA reorganization actions taken or proposed by the Trump Administration and

current EPA senior leadership. For example, they argue that these actions are needed to improve

agency efficiency, eliminate waste and fraud, and roll back what some refer to as regulatory

“overreach.”99 EPA has stated that the changes will “better fulfill statutory obligations and

95 EPA, FY2027 Justification of Appropriations, p. 29.

96 EPA, FY2027 Justification of Appropriations.

97 For more information, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10158, Organizing Executive Branch Agencies: Who Makes the

Call?, by Jared P. Cole.

98 CRS takes no position on various reorganization or policy options outlined in this report.

99 For example, see Rep. Tim Scott, “Scott, Wicker, Griffith Push Back on EPA Overreach,” press release, February 26,

2025, https://www.scott.senate.gov/media-center/press-releases/scott-wicker-griffith-push-back-on-epa-overreach/; and

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, “Capito Praises EPA Deregulatory Action,” press release, March 12, 2025,

https://www.capito.senate.gov/news/press-releases/capito-praises-epa-deregulatory-action.

Congressional Research Service

23

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

provide clean air, water, and land for all Americans and modernize mission support” while

“remaining good stewards of taxpayer dollars.”100 In congressional debate on EPA appropriations,

House Appropriations Committee Members have supported reductions in agency funding to

reduce federal spending and to implement “rightsizing” federal agencies, including EPA.101

Other policymakers and stakeholders oppose recently implemented or proposed agency

reorganization efforts and support retaining the EPA organizational structure and programs as

they existed prior to recent changes (or expanding the structure and programs). Some Members

have raised concerns that changes to EPA will leave the agency without the resources, staffing, or

expertise to carry out the agency’s statutory responsibilities. For example, in March 2025, nine

Senators from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works sent a letter to EPA

Administrator Zeldin expressing concerns about termination of EPA grants and other assistance

that Congress had mandated in statute.102 The Committee members asserted that the closure of

offices and termination of approximately 400 grant programs “violate a number of court orders—

[and] escalate your attempts to impound Congressionally-appropriated, legally-obligated funds

protecting clean air and clean water and powering domestic investment in low-cost clean

energy.”103

As noted earlier in this report, one of EPA’s primary functions established under Reorganization

Plan No. 3 involves providing consistent nationwide standards for pollution control and

conducting research on pollution and impacts in different environmental media. Some Members

have raised concerns about the reorganization’s impact on these functions. For example, Senate

report language accompanying the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Bill, 2026, stated the following:

The Committee is appalled that the Agency has announced the imminent closure of ORD,

which would result in the further loss of biologists, chemists, engineers, ecologists, and

other expert scientists numbering in the thousands and the closure of world-class

laboratories and research centers.104

Further, some Members have expressed objections over the closure of OEJCR and concerns about

how the agency would fulfil its responsibilities without this office and the programs it

administered. In March 2025, 109 Members sent a letter to EPA calling for the immediate

reopening of OEJCR and regional environmental justice offices.105 In addition, some stakeholders

in the environmental justice community have raised concerns about potential impacts of the

closure of the office and its programs on federal funding and technical assistance for certain

100 EPA, “EPA Announces Next Phase of Organization Improvements to Better Fulfill Statutory Obligations to Deliver

Clean Air, Land, and Water to All Americans, Modernize Mission Support,” press release, July 17, 2025,

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-next-phase-organizational-improvements-better-fulfill-statutory

101 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, “Committee Approves FY26 Interior and Environment

Appropriations Act,” press release, July 22, 2025, https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/committeeapproves-fy26-interior-and-environment-appropriations-act.

102 Letter from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to Lee M. Zeldin, EPA Administrator, March

25, 2025, https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/b/1/b187b894-093b-4937-a70a349313d4bb72/FB84FA8E7901E823EF0AF5E587D043E4CA2564F248F535919E3135B628764B80.3.25.25-letter-reej-grant-terminations-and-oej-ecr-closure.pdf.

103 Letter from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to Lee M. Zeldin.

104 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related

Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2026, report to accompany S. 2431, 119th Cong., 1nd sess., S.Rept. 119-46, July 24, 2025,

p. 91.

105 Letter from Members of Congress to Lee Zeldin, EPA Administrator, March 27, 2025, https://casten.house.gov/imo/

media/doc/letter_to_epa_opposing_elimination_of_environmental_justice_offices.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

24

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

communities, and have observed that “EPA will no longer be able to successfully fulfil its

missions of protecting the health of every American and the environment.”106

EPA’s Office of Inspector General addressed potential impacts of reorganization in The 2026

EPA’s Fiscal Year 2026 Top Management Challenges report.107 The report notes that the agency

expected the restructuring to save $748.8 million (time period unspecified).108 The report states

that “EPA will need to manage any risk that its reduced staffing levels and restructuring could

have on its mission and operations, as well as ensure that its statutory mandates or fulfilled.”109

Considerations for State Implementation of Pollution Control Programs

Reorganization activities could also impact states as they implement delegated federal pollution

control programs. Under multiple pollution control statutes, states perform a lead role in

permitting, enforcement, technical assistance, and grant programs, while EPA performs a wide

range of scientific research and development activities that inform the programs implemented by

the states.

Policymakers have viewpoints on the potential impact of EPA reorganization on states, tribes, and

local governments. Some who support EPA reorganization argue that state governments are in a

better position than EPA to administer pollution control programs and activities due to knowledge

of state-specific issues, geographic proximity to sites of environmental concern, and laws and

regulations tailored to their unique state and local circumstances, among other reasons. In a press

release, for example, EPA has stated that reorganization actions, such as elimination of

environmental justice programs, “gives power back to states to make their own decisions.”110

In contrast, some policymakers and stakeholders opposed to reorganization have expressed

concerns that states could be negatively affected by reorganization activities that reduce or

eliminate programs, staff, or financial assistance to states and other entities. Some stakeholders

observe that reduced or eliminated federal financial and technical support for states could cause

challenges in administering delegated pollution control programs, especially with states

themselves reducing pollution control funding.111 Without sufficient resources, technical support,

or national scientific research from EPA, they argue, states may not be able to meet the

requirements of pollution control programs or achieve certain environmental protection goals

underlying federal environmental statutes. The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), for

example, referred to the principle of cooperative federalism and observed that states “rely on the

U.S. EPA to provide sound science” and asked that “Congress support robust scientific research

and development capabilities,” as “states are not resourced or equipped to perform such work.”112

Some opponents of EPA reorganization raise concerns about the impacts of a greater state role in

pollution control on industries and environmental issues that involve multiple states. They argue

106 Inside EPA, “Zeldin Officially Eliminated EPA Environmental Justice, Civil Rights Office,” March 12, 2025,

https://insideepa.com/daily-news/zeldin-officially-eliminates-epa-environmental-justice-civil-rights-office;

Environmental Defense Fund, “Trump Administration to Close EPA’s Environmental Justice Offices,” press release,

March 12, 2025, https://www.edf.org/media/trump-administration-close-epas-environmental-justice-offices.

107 EPA Office of Inspector General, The EPA’s Fiscal Year 2026 Top Management Challenges, May 6, 2026,

https://www.epa.gov/office-inspector-general/report-epas-fiscal-year-2026-top-management-challenges, p. 11.

108 EPA Office of Inspector General, The EPA’s Fiscal Year 2026 Top Management Challenges, p. 11.

109 EPA Office of Inspector General, The EPA’s Fiscal Year 2026 Top Management Challenges, p. 11.

110 EPA, “EPA Terminates Biden’s Environmental Justice, DEI Arms of the Agency.”

111 Environment Integrity Project, “State of Decline,” https://environmentalintegrity.org/reports/state-of-decline/.

112 Environmental Council of the States, “ECOS Statement on States’ Need for EPA Scientific Research,” press release,

April 16, 2025, https://www.ecos.org/news-and-updates/ecos-statement-on-states-need-for-epa-scientific-research/.

Congressional Research Service

25

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

that elimination of national EPA programs, such as scientific research and standards development,

could result in potentially different and conflicting pollution control regulations and standards

across states, which was one of the rationales for the formation of EPA in 1970 and for providing

the agency with the authority to set national standards.

Policy Options

There are policy options available to Congress should Members want to solicit information or

develop legislation related to EPA reorganization. Congress could, for example, hold hearings or

request information from EPA on the status of the reorganization efforts, such as office

organization, staffing levels, program functions, facilities, and operations. Members could also

make inquiries regarding the impacts of reorganization on EPA’s duties and functions, such as the

expected costs and benefits to the agency and specific plans to enable the agency to continue to

fulfill its statutory pollution control mandates for program implementation, standard-setting,

financial and technical assistance for states, and other activities (as discussed further in the next

two sections). Congress could also choose to amend or enact new legislation authorizing specific

EPA functions or duties that could support or reverse recent reorganization; however, as noted

above, EPA does have some discretion for changes within the agency itself.

EPA Statutory Authorities and Responsibilities

Congress could consider policy issues related to the implementation of the multiple statutes under

which EPA promulgates regulations and administers dozens of scientific, pollution control, and

financial assistance programs. For example, the extent of EPA’s authorities provided by Congress

under certain statutes and whether specific programs and activities align with this authority has

been an ongoing topic of congressional debate. Recent reorganization efforts, as well ongoing

litigation in the courts, have increased policymaker interest in these issues.

Policymakers and stakeholders have raised various arguments regarding the need to amend,

eliminate, or maintain these statutes or various provisions within them, reflecting differing

viewpoints on pollution control goals and priorities. Some policymakers have raised questions

about both EPA’s general authorities and specific statutory authorities to administer certain

programs. For example, EPA’ s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the CAA has

been the subject of several years of ongoing policy and legal debates.113 In addition, as noted

earlier in this report, the Trump Administration issued E.O.s directing agencies to eliminate

certain federal environmental justice activities, including those at EPA, and announced the

proposed elimination of the agency’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, citing lack of specific

authority to implement such programs and activities, among other rationales (for more

information on these actions, see CRS In Focus IF12922, Trump Administration EnvironmentalJustice-Related Executive Orders: Potential Implications for EPA Programs, by Angela C. Jones;

and CRS In Focus IF11754, EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, by Angela C. Jones).114

Further, in 2024, the Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overruled

Chevron deference and provided that courts should no longer defer to an agency’s reasonable

113 On February 18, 2026, EPA finalized a rule rescinding the agency’s greenhouse gas endangerment finding under the

Clean Air Act. EPA, “Rescission of the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas

Emission Standards Under the Clean Air Act,” 91 Federal Register 7686, February 18, 2026, https://www.govinfo.gov/

content/pkg/FR-2026-02-18/pdf/2026-03157.pdf. See also CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11320, EPA to Revisit Greenhouse

Gas Endangerment Finding, by Andrew S. Coghlan.

114 EPA, “EPA Releases Proposal to End the Burdensome, Costly Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, Saving up to

$2.4 Billion,” press release, September 12, 2025, https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-releases-proposal-endburdensome-costly-greenhouse-gas-reporting-program-saving-24.

Congressional Research Service

26

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

interpretation of an ambiguous statute.115 Instead, courts are to give effect to the “best meaning”

of the statute, which could impact how EPA and the courts view the scope of EPA’s authority

under the pollution control statutes.116 For example, litigation may raise questions about the scope

of EPA’s authority to implement programs and activities under more general provisions in

pollution control statutes, or which specific activities are considered within the scope of

provisions authorizing EPA programs or directing the agency to fulfill certain responsibilities.

(The details of these court cases and implications are beyond the scope of this report.)

In contrast, other policymakers have supported maintaining or expanding EPA’s specific

authorities and programs they view as already established in pollution control statutes over time.

For example, Members have expressed objections to certain changes in agency programs and

policies related to greenhouse gases, grant programs, and environmental justice activities.117

Policy Options

Congress could consider the implications of how EPA interprets the statutes and uses its authority

to implement regulations, as well as specific agency activities and programs. Congress could

decide to amend certain existing pollution control statutes to clarify its intent and provide specific

direction to EPA on authorizations, specific responsibilities, and program scope. Congress also

could choose to maintain the statutes in their current form or revoke certain statutes or provisions.

EPA Resources: Appropriations and Staffing

EPA’s statutory authorities and organizational structure may be factored into congressional

appropriations for the agency and allocations among specific appropriations accounts and

program areas. At the same time, the resources made available through the expenditure of

congressional appropriations, such as staff, equipment, building and facilities, and funding for a

variety of operational needs, affect the agency’s organizational structure and its capacity to carry

out its statutory responsibilities. Congress could consider how changes in levels of EPA

appropriations and recent transfers and reductions in staff, and other changes to the agency’s

available resources associated with reorganization, could influence the agency’s ability to

effectively implement all of the provisions of various pollution control statutes enacted over time.

Appropriations Levels

As detailed earlier in this report, EPA appropriations levels have fluctuated over the past five

fiscal years. While regular annual appropriations were provided at similar levels (in nominal

dollars), EPA’s total appropriations were higher than earlier periods with the addition of

supplemental funding from the IRA and IIJA. In those acts, Congress added to EPA’s

responsibilities through authorizing new and expanded programs in climate, water infrastructure,

and grants for states and communities in a range of pollution control areas. In 2025, however, the

measure known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21) Title VI, repealed and rescinded

unobligated IRA funding for many climate and air programs authorized and funded in that act.

115 Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 412 (2024).

116 For more information, see CRS Report R48320, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and the Future of Agency

Interpretations of Law, by Benjamin M. Barczewski.

117 Letter from Members of Congress to Lee M. Zeldin, EPA Administrator, April 9, 2025,

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/6/c/6cab84d1-ca65-4806-876bd41627daf725/EFEA802C99A0B88051D289D9AAC2BCEC830F9DD01A800D33FFCDB74EE6376E36.25.04.09letter-to-oppose-epa-s-assault-on-environmental-protections-final.pdf; Letter from the Senate Committee on

Environment and Public Works to Lee M. Zeldin.

Congressional Research Service

27

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

Total EPA appropriations could decline after FY2026 with the end of IIJA advance

appropriations, although some funding appropriated by 2026 does not need to be expended until

later fiscal years.

When considering future EPA appropriations, some Members could support reduced

appropriations levels for the agency in line with administration goals for overall federal funding

reductions and directing the agency to implement what they consider to be more efficient

operations and programs in line with administration priorities. Members could also support

funding reductions given the levels of supplemental appropriations to EPA in the last five fiscal

years as well as the reductions in EPA staffing and programmatic responsibilities either

implemented or being considered, which may require fewer resources for the agency. In contrast,

other Members could support increasing or maintaining EPA appropriations levels. Some

members argue that the same or greater EPA funding is needed to account for generally rising

operational costs and the broad range of statutory responsibilities the agency is still required to

implement, regardless of reorganization-related changes in programs and organizational structure.

Staffing Levels

Congress could consider the implications of recent changes to EPA staffing levels on the agency’s

programmatic functions and capacity to implement its statutory responsibilities. In 2025 and

2026, EPA reorganization actions, including RIFs, retirements and other separations, reduced

staffing levels in multiple agency offices and shifted other staff to new offices and programs. The

overall EPA FTE ceiling level for 2026 is 1,818 (13%) lower than for FY2025.118 In 2025, 280

environmental-justice-related staff were laid off or left the agency, and EPA relocated or laid off

more than 1,500 ORD staff, among other staffing changes.119 While some policymakers support

reduced EPA staff levels as part of what they view as needed cost reductions and improved

agency efficiency, other policymakers have objected to RIFs and other changes. For example, as

noted earlier in this report, some Members have expressed concern about what they view as a

significant reduction in agency science and research staff as well as staff in programs supporting

environmental-justice-related activities, arguing that the agency cannot fulfill its statutory

responsibilities with fewer staff and other resources.120

EPA’s 2026 OIG report raises concerns about changes in staffing at the agency that “might

constrain the EPA’s ability to accomplish its missions, goals, and objectives.”121 Specifically, the

report states that, “While the Agency may initially achieve some level of cost savings with its

workforce reductions, such reductions carry inherent operational risks, including a loss of

technical expertise, historical understanding, and practical experience that EPA employees

develop through years of service.”122

118 EPA FY2027 Budget in Brief; EPA, “EPA Announces Reduction in Force, Reorganization Efforts to Save

Taxpayers Nearly Three-Quarters of a Billion Dollars.” Reductions in 2025 included 3,201 applications received for

“Fork in the Road,” Deferred Resignation Program, and Voluntary Early Retirement.

119 EPA, “EPA Announces Reduction in Force, Reorganization Efforts to Save Taxpayers Nearly Three-Quarters of a

Billion Dollars.”

120 House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Democrats, “Ranking Members Lofgren and Amo Slam EPA for

Elimination of Office of Research and Development”; Letter from Members of Congress to Lee M. Zeldin, March 27,

2025; Letter from Members of Congress to Lee M. Zeldin, April 9, 2025.

121

EPA Office of Inspector General, The EPA’s Fiscal Year 2026 Top Management Challenges, p. 11.

122 EPA Office of Inspector General, The EPA’s Fiscal Year 2026 Top Management Challenges, p. 11.

Congressional Research Service

28

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

Policy Options

When conducting oversight of EPA and debating future EPA appropriations, Congress could

consider whether changes in appropriations levels or distribution among EPA appropriations

accounts are needed to account for agency reorganizations that have changed or eliminated some

agency offices and programs, as well as the IRA recissions and the end of IIJA advance

appropriations. Congress could consider how changes in EPA office structure and functions,

staffing levels, and program implementation factor into decisions to increase, decrease, or

maintain agency appropriations compared to FY2026.

With regard to EPA staffing levels, Congress could consider the potential impacts of RIFs or

workforce reshaping on the agency’s capacity and resources to implement its statutory

responsibilities. Congress could, for example, hold hearings or make inquiries to EPA regarding

staffing and the agency’s plans to continue its current programs and functions with reduced

staffing levels and recent staff reorganizations. Building on the proposed staffing changes in

EPA’s FY2027 congressional budget justification, Congress may seek additional information from

EPA on employee reductions, increases, and transfers and implications for the workforce and

specific technical and policy expertise needed for certain EPA positions. Although federal

agencies have some discretion in operational and staffing decisions, Congress also could consider

whether new legislation or amendments to existing legislation are needed in response to changes

in the EPA workforce. This could include reductions or changes in responsibilities given lower

resource levels, or legislative direction to the agency regarding staffing levels and workforce

issues. Alternatively, Congress could choose to not take legislative action and rely on EPA to

carry out its responsibilities with current, and potentially future lower, levels of staff.

Congressional Research Service

29

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

Appendix. Glossary of Abbreviations

AEC

Atomic Energy Commission

CAA

Clean Air Act

CEQ

Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CWA

Clean Water Act

DOI

U.S. Department of the Interior

EPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPCRA

Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act

E.O.

Executive order

FRC

Federal Radiation Council

FIFRA

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FTE

Full-time equivalent

HEW

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

MPRSA

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

NEPA

National Environmental Policy Act

ODA

Ocean Dumping Act

OAR

Office of Air and Radiation

OASES

Office of Science and Environmental Solutions

OCSPP

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

OECA

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OEJECR

Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights

OFA

Office of Finance and Administration

OGC

Office of General Counsel

OIG

Office of Inspector General

OITA

Office of International and Tribal Affairs

OLEM

Office of Land and Emergency Management

OMB

Office of Management and Budget

OPA

Oil Pollution Act

ORD

Office of Research and Development

OW

Office of Water

PPA

Pollution Prevention Act

RCRA

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RIF

Reduction in force

SDWA

Safe Drinking Water Act

SARA

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SWDA

Solid Waste Disposal Act

USDA

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Congressional Research Service

30

U.S. EPA: Origins, Authorities, and Organization

Author Information

Angela C. Jones

Specialist in Environmental Policy

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan

shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and

under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other

than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in

connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not

subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in

its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or

material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to

copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service

R48961 · VERSION 1 · NEW

31