One of the more common statements I see in the anti-Bush propaganda around campus is that he wants to poison our drinking water by increasing the levels of arsenic in the system. Now all he was really interested in was figuring out what level of arsenic is dangerous and setting the federal standards there. Even if he were mistaken on the facts, it doesn't amount to a desire to poison people. Still, more reasonable environmentalists who don't think he's trying to poison people will insist that he doesn't care if people are poisoned.
From what I'd read about this issue before, I knew that Clinton had increased the standard so that a lower amount of arsenic was being counted as dangerous than had previously been the case. I thought the issue was simply over whether that was a safe level and that some industries were polluting at levels in between the Clinton standard and the previous standard, and environmentalists wanted to stop that. It turns out that safe levels are only part of the issue, and pollution from industry isn't even involved. Stuart Buck flags a Washington Post writer's explanation of that as a key difference between red-staters and blue-staters.
The primary issue is whether the natural levels of arsenic in drinking water in many rural locations, not at all water polluted by industry, are safe and whether new water purification facilities need to be built at great expense in impoverished rural areas due to the preferences of rich environmentalists in big cities who feel uncomfortable about reducing even unreasonable environmental regulations, since that's backward by definition in their dictionaries. So it's not even that liberal policy on this issue is irrelevant and unnecessary. It's that it may well be harmful. It's because of things like this that I never believe anything I read from the major environmentalist organizations. The issues are always far more complicated than they admit, at best.