Recently, I told you about a national organization originally based in New Jersey called Oxybusters. This organization took the position that the gasoline additive called MTBE was very dangerous and should be outlawed. Oxybusters also maintained that the Congressionally imposed oxygen mandate, which provides that reformulated gasoline must contain two percent oxygen by weight, is also a bad idea.

The EPA required that MTBE be introduced in the gasoline sold in states will poor air quality. The idea was that MTBE would make gasoline burn more efficiently, thus reducing smog emissions. Great idea on a paper, but in reality MTBE seemed to be bad news.

First, people complained of headaches. But headaches were the least of everyone's problem. The biggest problem is that the MTBE started leaking from the underground storage tanks at gas stations and is now blamed for polluting some drinking water supplies.

Some California municipalities have already stopped drawing groundwater for drinking purposes. And, it may very well be that the problems thus far reported are the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps over the next 10 years, we'll be seeing many more drinking water supplies, both private wells and municipal water supplies, that are under threat because of MTBE.

In fact, a class-action lawsuit has already been filed on behalf of private well owners against the major oil companies. Of course, the oil companies will point the finger back to the EPA, the agency that made them put this poison in gasoline in the first place. And suing the EPA is a tough row to hoe.

After years of complaining, the feds finally started to pay attention to Oxybusters, as well as others who have advocated the same position. Now the federal government and the states appear to be ready to curtail the use of MTBE.

The irony of all of this should not escape us. The EPA, which is charged with protecting us from polluters, is probably responsible for one of the largest, most far reaching pollution problems in modern history. How could the agency have imposed this MTBE requirement without really first evaluating it? And certainly, the EPA would not do something so short sighted again, right?

Guess what? It looks like the EPA is doing the exact same thing all over again. You see, the feds believe that if MTBE can't do the job, then ethanol should be used and it will reduce smog. If only it were that simple. Various studies, including one cited by a federal court, suggest that ethanol may release poisons and may enhance smog.

When EPA attempted to mandate ethanol use in 1995, it lost in court. A judge found that EPA conceded that the additive might possibly make air quality worse! Others suggest that ethanol may eat away at rubber fittings, which might cause engine fires. Car were recalled in 1987 in the U.S. due to concerns relating to this issue.

In an editorial appearing in the March 23, 2000 edition of USA Today, the paper took the position that we should not rush to ethanol as an MTBE substitute. The paper cited many sources which suggest that ethanol may cause many more problems than it can possibly solve. Assuming it can solve any problems at all.

So this is the question: can the EPA learn from its mistakes? Large agencies are sometimes so wrapped up in bureaucratic knots that they can't steer themselves away from silly reasoning. In light of the horrible MTBE fiasco, we must question whether the EPA is an agency equivalent of the Titanic.