This letter to the editor meant to say that the budget would "effectively kill" EPA cleanup job and why. The paper left out the word "effectively". The letter rambles just a bit, and then comes to a sardonic conclusion:

The article in "Earth Watch", with the headline "Trump's budget would kill 7-year cleanup job" is inaccurate in an important way. The article says the EPA "returns the responsibility for funding local environmental efforts and programs to state and local entities ..." It then says that the EPA can then focus on national priorities.

  

I have heard the word "priority" quite a bit recently in relationship to the EPA. I don't quite understand what this word means, nor do I understand fully the word "local" in the context of the article. Given that the Great Lakes borders many states, and that it and the Chesapeake Bay provide recreation for millions of people, I do think these water bodies are a priority and that they are not simply local.  Indeed, it will be very challenging for states to come together and put together the money and the administrative capability, not to mention mutual good will, necessary to continue the clean up of these major water bodies.

Nevertheless, I believe it is best to take the EPA statement seriously, and expect that enough funds will be retained by the states to continue this important environmental remediation. Otherwise, the following headline will be true -- "Trump's budget effectively killed 7-year cleanup job."