Overnight Energy: Scientists flee USDA as research agencies move to Kansas City area | Watchdog finds EPA skirted rules to put industry reps on boards | New rule to limit ability to appeal pollution permits

by Rebecca Beitsch - 07/15/19 7:34 PM ET

KANSAS CITY OR UNEMPLOYMENT? A Trump administration decision to move researchers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to the Kansas City area is threatening to spark the flight of more than half of the staff selected to move, gutting the agency of its top scientific voices.

Staff have until midnight Monday to decide whether to uproot and join the department as it moves its research branches from Washington, D.C., lured by $26 million in promised incentives from state and local officials.

Critics see the move, set to be completed by Sept. 30, as yet another example of the Trump administration looking to sideline scientists and researchers, keeping them away from the corridors of power. Administration officials deny that, calling it a cost-saving move intended to have researchers closer to farmers.{mosads}

The decision comes as other agencies are also planning to relocate parts of their teams amid suspicions about the move. For example, the Interior Department is expected to announce Tuesday a new headquarters for the Bureau of Land Management.

Why scientists are worried: “Moving these researchers out of Washington puts them out of earshot from policymakers. A lot of the research that scientists and economists do at [USDA] has policy implications and members of Congress need this information and need to have face-to-face meetings with these researchers,” Rebecca Boehm, with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told The Hill.

“It keeps science out of the policymaking process. And we’ve seen many times that this administration doesn’t like facts or research that isn’t convenient or [is] an impediment to their agenda, so I think moving them away helps accomplish that,” she added.

Who is going to be affected: The move affects two wings of the USDA. Economic Research Service (ERS) employees analyze the agricultural market, but their research is much broader, including looking at food stamps, rural poverty and conservation.

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) employees work with universities to fund research and coordinate the process that issues research grants on agriculture-related subjects, including climate change adaptation.

The two agencies voted to unionize in response to the move, as Democrats in both chambers and a number of groups that regularly work with the two agencies lobby to keep them in Washington.

Estimates tallied by employees show 70 percent of ERS employees designated for the Kansas City office will not be moving. For NIFA, 45 percent of those surveyed say they will not move. Overall, the move was expected to impact 547 staff between the two agencies.

But the numbers of staff refusing to move may grow: Some employees said staff at both agencies are trying not to tip their hand, saying they will move only if they do not find another job in the D.C. area.

So far, just 27 ERS staff out of 250 have committed to moving to Kansas City, according to the employee tallies.

What about the money? The UDSA argues the move will save $300 million over 15 years, but critics have said their cost-benefit analysis was shoddy and did not follow guidelines.

A different cost-benefit analysis from the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association found the move would cost taxpayers between $83 million and $182 million.

Read more about opposition to the move here.

TGIF! And welcome to Overnight Energy, The Hill’s roundup of the latest energy and environment news.

Please send tips and comments to Miranda Green, mgreen@digital-staging.thehill.com and Rebecca Beitsch, rbeitsch@digital-staging.thehill.com. Follow us on Twitter: @mirandacgreen, @rebeccabeitsch and @thehill.

CLICK HERE to subscribe to our newsletter.

GAO-NO! The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) increased the number of industry representatives and consultants on its top scientific board and failed to ensure all those appointees met ethics requirements, a government watchdog found.

A report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found the EPA did not follow the process for selecting the “best qualified and most appropriate candidates” for two important committees that advise on environmental regulations and also “did not ensure that all appointees met ethics requirements.”

The EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB), a team of more than 40 of the nation’s top scientists, is designed to guide the agency on its scientific processes.

Critics say it has been repeatedly targeted by the Trump administration. Many academics were removed by guidelines from former Administrator Scott Pruitt that barred those who receive EPA research grants from serving on the committee. There was no similar ban for scientists who receive industry funding.

Lawmakers react: “The GAO’s findings are yet another example Donald Trump handing the keys to Americans’ government to big industries that government is supposed to police,” Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.) said in a statement.

“After a careful investigation, the non-partisan GAO confirms what we’ve been critical of all along: The Trump Administration is violating its own rules by putting industry officials in charge of crucially important science advisory boards,” the statement said.

The GAO report said there were “notable changes” to some committees, including an initial drop in the number of academics serving on the SAB.

It also highlighted numerous issues with following ethics guidelines.

EPA’s response: The EPA pushed back again the report.

“EPA has already provided GAO its thorough explanation on their conclusion that the Agency did not follow its own policy – the assertion is incorrect and should be removed from the report,” Michael Abboud, an EPA spokesman, said in a statement to The Hill.