For example, most of the standards in the Clean Water Act are technology-based standards, so analysis of risk is, at least in theory, irrelevant to setting these standards. It is difficult to use good science to make decisions if the relevant statutory provisions do not allow good science to be used. Most risks cut across media lines, so the scientific data about risk does not follow the budgetary or program categories. The risks of arsenic are within the purview of the air office, the water office, and the office of solid waste. Nitrogen poses risks in air, water, and soil.
Climate change is an air problem, a water problem, and a land problem.
The United States is one of the last industrialized countries to cling to a non-integrated pollution control system, and difficulty in using risk information is one of the penalties we pay. Conclusions Despite its limitations, CRA is a valuable analytical tool. It may be most useful for the questions it raises and as a way of initiating a process leading to more transparent and defensible decision-making. How well it serves these functions will depend heavily on whether Congress itself asks for relevant risk information and uses the answers in its budgetary, oversight, and legislative actions.