It’s now a familiar routine: The Bush administration weakens environmental rules, causing states to sue to protect their citizens, their health and environment. This time, the litigation, by 12 states including Maine, is about a federal database of industrial chemical use and storage. Despite strong support for the program, the administration earlier this year eased reporting requirements, leaving two dozen Maine communities without information about chemicals used in their midst. If the courts do not restore the program, Congress should.

Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency revised the Toxics Release Inventory to require that, for each of the 650 chemicals, companies must report the releases into the environment – the air, water and ground – if they exceed 2,000 pounds annually and they handle at least 5,000 pounds of the chemical. Previously, the release reporting threshold was 500 pounds.

The EPA said the changes would affect only 1 percent of the total releases now reported to the agency. It also said the changes would save nearly $6 million – or $900 per facility.

A study, requested by Sen. Olympia Snowe, found that the EPA’s rewrite of rules didn’t meet the agency’s own standards, won’t save companies much money and will leave the public with much less useful information. The report, by the Government Accountability Office, offers compelling reasons for the rollback to be repealed.

Nationally, more than 3,500 facilities would no longer have to report at all, according to the GAO. As for costs, they are likely to be less than the already low EPA estimate. Further, in crafting the rule, the EPA rushed the process, not allowing enough time for thorough impact analyses and only limited input from the agency’s own staff, the GAO said.

In Maine, many of the companies included in the TRI release only small amounts of chemicals. There are 45 Maine communities that have at least one facility included in the inventory. Under the new rules, about half of these communities have less data available from the inventory and 21 facilities no longer have to report at all.

The lack of information and the minimal cost savings resulting from the revised rules are outweighed by the public benefits of the previous TRI rules.

Since the TRI disclosure requirement went into effect in 1998, the volume of toxic material released in the United States has been cut in half. The information is used by communities to hold companies accountable and make informed decisions about how toxic chemicals are managed. The information is also used by the EPA itself to track chemical use and potential to harm the environment. It is also used by state and local agencies and first responders such as those in New Orleans who used the TRI to find out what chemicals were in the water that flooded the city.

Given the benefits of the TRI, it should be strengthened, not weakened. The inventory should be improved by requiring that more comparative data be included. For example, is a company exceeding its permitted emissions or falling far below them? Are a facility’s toxic releases being reduced over time?

That would be a public benefit.