Turning to clean air and water, every effort to write a rule meets with an inherent conflict. Regulated parties always want new rules to be flexible and consistent. They have said so. I agree with the industry viewpoint: Both traits are good to have in rules. But they are conflicting virtues.

“Flexible” means “allowing room for case-by-case judgment.” “Consistent” means “all cases treated the same.” A choice can be made to have more of one and less of the other. To furnish more of both is not possible. And even to try leads to provisions by the dozen and clauses by the score. Any effort towards more options imperils the golden virtues of brevity and clarity.

Valid complaints about rules begin with a lack of flexibility, lack of consistency, lack of clarity, and lack of brevity. Fixing any of them has to make others worse. Making things worse is another valid gripe. Sparring with dilemmas is the essence of issue advocacy and campaign slogans.

Another perpetual grievance is the dilemma of data: to be specific, the quantity and cost of data. Data about emissions and pollution in air and water are key to setting good rules, enforcing good rules and having anybody believe anybody. A constant plea comes from all sides—industry, agencies and the public alike—that more data should be supplied and used.

No sooner is it done than the data dilemma rears its dueling heads. Answers to one question point to the next question. Data X show the need for data Y. What amount is best? Answers based on more data are more correct, yet are more obscured and harder to convey. A summary version of the data is clearer, but the shortness breeds suspicions of deceit in the shadows of omitted data.

Data cost money to gather, analyze, store, and send out to others. Whoever pays for the work rouses fears they could doctor the data. Not to pay means no data. Data also take time to gather, assess, check, and send for review, while answers and decisions wait. In short, the more the data, the more perplexing.

Matters get worse yet when we add the data dilemma to the rule dilemma. Flexible rules, allowing for case-by-case judgment, are good. Case-by-case judgment has to grapple with more site-specific data. Acquiring and using more specific data add to costs, time, and the size of a bureau. Costs, delays, and bigger bureaus are bad. We pursue an endless maze of valid and heartfelt gripes.

All the virtues mentioned here have popular appeal. What do people like? A large majority would vote for a free Tibet, no war, flexible rules, consistent rules, clarity, brevity, complete data, low costs, no delays, and small bureaus that are light on their feet. That outcome would surely spread wide smiles.

We expect that mutual desires held by a vast majority would spur common ideas. Instead, working to meet mutual desires looks more like cats in a bathtub.

The war with our own goals is the dilemma of dilemmas. We want all the good parts—and no bad parts—in a trade-off. Nothing is more normal than wanting to have our cake and eat it too.

Our nature is as old as human history. The symptoms are incurable; the maze is unsolvable. But the persistent dilemmas can be described as they are.