Russ Zimmer

@RussZimmer

The EPA would eliminate 56 programs and a quarter of its workforce under a new spending plan leaked to the Washington Post.

New Jersey, with its older homes and lingering legacy of pollution, should be concerned.

Do you like knowing what Shore beaches have dirty water? The future of that program is in jeopardy.

The video above shows the top 10 air polluters in Monmouth and Ocean counties.

The Trump administration's plan to roll back federal spending on environmental protection by nearly one-third has endangered a handful of programs that are especially valuable to New Jersey families.

The Washington Post obtained a plan and memo authored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's acting chief financial officer that details how the agency would eliminate a quarter of its employees and 56 programs. The newspaper posted the entire document online.

The plan, whose spending levels would begin in October, identifies multiple programs and grants that would be of particular interest to the Jersey Shore, where an industrial past commingles with the beach-dependent tourism sector of today:

Superfund : There are a 114 Superfund sites — land that needs to be cleansed of toxic contamination before it can be used again — in New Jersey, more than any other state. Fourteen of those locations are in Monmouth and Ocean counties. The EPA's new direction would mean less resources for enforcement within the program. Savings : $29.2 million Jobs eliminated: approximately 244

: There are a 114 Superfund sites — land that needs to be cleansed of toxic contamination before it can be used again — in New Jersey, more than any other state. Fourteen of those locations are in Monmouth and Ocean counties.

Lead : Whether it's lead-based paint or lead in household plumbing, the chemical element is a clear and present danger to the children of New Jersey, where most of the housing stock was built before the use of lead in paint and plumbing was outlawed. The EPA plan would shutter the Lead Risk Reduction Program, which sets standards for identifying and removing lead hazards in the home, and a multipurpose grant to states. Savings : $16.3 million Jobs eliminated: approximately 73

: Whether it's lead-based paint or lead in household plumbing, the chemical element is a clear and present danger to the children of New Jersey, where most of the housing stock was built before the use of lead in paint and plumbing was outlawed. Drinking water : The city of Flint, Mich. switched its water supply to the Flint River in 2014, setting off a public health crisis that soon brought more nationwide scrutiny on the purity of American tap water. New Jersey was no exception, with the presence of lead often found in water from faucets in homes and drinking fountains in schools. To "refocus on core work on statutory requirements" and "(avoid) duplication with states or entities," the Trump administration proposes to shave grants for oversight of public water systems, although it would maintain the federal drinking water program. Savings : $30.7 million

: The city of Flint, Mich. switched its water supply to the Flint River in 2014, setting off a public health crisis that soon brought more nationwide scrutiny on the purity of American tap water. New Jersey was no exception, with the presence of lead often found in water from faucets in homes and drinking fountains in schools. Beach protection : Last summer, the Asbury Park Press began issuing weekly reports on water quality at Jersey Shore beaches. While the state's beaches rate better than those in New York, there were occasional flare-ups of nasty microbes that can cause gastrointestinal illness if swallowed. There will be no more federal assistance to pay for beach water monitoring, according to the EPA plan. Savings : $9.5 million

: Last summer, the Asbury Park Press began issuing weekly reports on water quality at Jersey Shore beaches. While the state's beaches rate better than those in New York, there were occasional flare-ups of nasty microbes that can cause gastrointestinal illness if swallowed.

The agency-wide cuts would reduce the EPA's total spending to $5.7 billion, or 31 percent. The EPA accounts for about ½ of 1 percent of all discretionary spending in the Trump budget.

A "31-percent cut in the (EPA) is ... basically doing away with the agency," said Christine Whitman, a Republican, former New Jersey governor and head of the EPA at the beginning of President George W. Bush's first term, during a conference call with reporters earlier this week.

David Bloom, the agency's CFO, tells the EPA's senior staff that the plan represents "final resource levels" and "will require taking a comprehensive look at our priorities and thinking differently about the best ways to accomplish our core statutory responsibilities."

"The agency' s work will center on our core legal requirements, federal-only and national efforts, providing support to states in implementing environmental laws, and easing regulatory burden," Bloom says in the March 21 memo leaked to the Post.

What it means to New Jersey

To New Jersey environmentalists, however, President Trump's blueprint for the EPA amounts to a total disregard for the agency's mission.

MORE: 5 reasons environmentalists fear President Trump

"It is an attempt to fundamentally alter the mission of EPA, to rein back its enforcement and assistance to states like New Jersey and eliminate more than 50 programs across the nation," said Doug O'Malley, executive director of Environment New Jersey. "It is clearly reflecting the desire of polluting industries and their allies, like EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, to defang the EPA by withdrawing oversight of state environmental programs."

The effect of a shrunken EPA could be felt in a couple different ways: the loss of federal action itself and also the disappearance of federal money at the state level.

Federal grants make up 25 percent to 30 percent of the state Department of Environmental Protection's annual budget, including the program that warns beachgoers of water quality problems.

When asked about how the EPA plan would affect the state's efforts, a DEP spokesman forwarded a statement from the Governor's Office that advocated restraint on analyzing the federal budget.

"As the Governor has previously noted, the federal spending proposal is not a final budget," said Gov. Chris Christie's spokesman, Brian Murray, in a statement last month. "This is the beginning of a lengthy annual process in which every state will participate through its appointed and elected representatives. As the process continues, the Governor’s office will work with New Jersey’s state and federal representatives in reaffirming the State’s priorities."

UNUSED SICK LEAVE: Making taxpayers ill, to the tune of $1B

It's worth noting that former President Barack Obama's EPA budgets also called for program reduction or elimination, including beach water monitoring funding. But by the time the final budgets had been approved, Congress stepped in and restored that program.

Just as important: Trump won the election — although he was not competitive in New Jersey — while telling Americans that the EPA was "a disgrace" and a prime target for scaling back.

"Our grassroots activists are concerned about federal overspending and cutting agency spending is a good way to protect taxpayers and guard against federal agency overreach. ... Policymakers need to have an open dialogue about the effects of tax hikes, hidden in environment regulation, as there are real-life impacts on small businesses and working families," said Erica Jedynak, New Jersey state director for the conservative Americans for Prosperity.

What happens next?

Most Americans — 61 percent, according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University — don't like the way Trump is handling the environment.

In a blue-state like New Jersey, some Republicans will break from the president to push legislation that favors the environment over business.

For example, Frank LoBiando, who represents south Jersey in the U.S. House, co-sponsored a bill introduced today that calls for the House to recognize and work toward solutions for climate change.

Former New Jersey governors Brendan Byrne, Tom Kean, Jim Florio and Whitman banded together to publicly denounce the new administration's stance on environmental protection.

The former governors, whose administrations ran the state from 1974 to 2001, signed on to a letter meant to pressure New Jersey's congressional delegation into moderating the president's plan to downsize the EPA.

THE RACE TO BE NJ'S NEXT GUV: 5 things about John Wisniewski

It's middle-of-the-road members like LoBiando and fellow Republican Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen, who chairs the powerful House Committee on Appropriations, that they hope to persuade.

"It's easy for people to say they hate regulation because it forces them to do something or spend money on a problem they don't think is real," Whitman said, "but I don't think they've fully thought through the consequences of what's going to happen when we stop protecting our environment."

DRINKING WATER: High lead levels found in three more NJ schools

OUTDOORS: 2017 may be a very bad year for Lyme disease

SCHOOL REPORT CARDS: How did your kid's school do?

Russ Zimmer: 732-557-5748, razimmer@app.com