‘Sound Science’ Bill: Two Conservative Principles in Tension

From Becky Gerritson, Executive Director, Eagle Forum of Alabama

Dear Friends,

In week 2, we raised strong concerns and sent out an action alert about SB71/HB162 the “Sound Science” bill, because protecting Alabama families, drinking water, and public health is important to Eagle Forum of Alabama.

Those concerns are real, and they deserve to be taken seriously.

However, as we have continued to review this legislation more closely, we believe it’s important to present a balanced analysis to help you understand why many conservatives, including those within the agriculture sector, and lawmakers with whom we are generally in agreement, see this bill differently.

At its core, this legislation reflects a long-standing conservative concern about regulatory overreach, particularly from unelected bureaucracies and environmental agencies that often impose costly rules based on speculative or theoretical risk rather than demonstrable harm.

For decades, conservatives, including President Trump,  have argued that excessive environmental regulation:

• Strangles economic growth and infrastructure development
• Raises costs for utilities, small businesses, and families
• Allows agencies like the EPA to expand authority beyond what Congress intended

President Trump acted repeatedly to rein in this kind of overreach by rolling back duplicative EPA rules, requiring regulations to be grounded in evidence, and emphasizing regulatory certainty for businesses and communities.

Supporters of SB71/HB162 argue that it reflects those same principles by:

• Preventing state agencies from layering regulations on top of existing federal standards
• Limiting regulatory action to what can be scientifically demonstrated
• Providing consistency and predictability for businesses, utilities, and infrastructure projects

From that perspective, aligning state standards with federal EPA rules is seen as a way to cut red tape, prevent regulatory mission creep, and reduce hidden costs that ultimately fall on families.

This is where the tension lies.

Conservatives agree on the goal of clean water and healthy communities. Many are comfortable with existing government standards, while others believe stronger protections may be needed. At the same time, conservatives value economic freedom and worry that too much environmental regulation can hurt both small and large businesses. Both of these views are held in good faith.

For Eagle Forum of Alabama, while we believe it is critical to remain vigilant whenever regulations could delay action on real environmental threats, this legislation also could relieve state government overreach and accountability.

Recognizing that our members approach this issue from different but sincere conservative perspectives, Eagle Forum of Alabama will remain neutral on this legislation. 

We appreciate your engagement and your passion for protecting Alabama, and we value lawmakers who are working through complex policy decisions in a fast-moving session.

As always, we will continue to monitor developments and speak up when Alabama families may be at risk.

Sincerely,
Eagle Forum of Alabama

For more information, go to www.AlabamaEagle.org or follow Eagle Forum of Alabama on Facebook.