BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Environmental Protection Agency Archive

Wednesday

21

March 2012

2

COMMENTS

Unanimous Supreme Court Slaps Down Tyrannical EPA

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

Although somewhat limited in its application, today’s Supreme Court decision in Sackett vs. EPA is a victory for property rights and should serve as a shot across the EPA‘s bow. I’ll let Alito’s concurrence set the stage:

The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects—would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) employees.

The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy. The EPA may issue a compliance order demanding that the owners cease construction, engage in expensive remedial measures, and abandon any use of the property. If the owners do not do the EPA’s bidding, they may be fined up to $75,000 per day ($37,500 for violating the Act and another $37,500 for violating the compliance order). And if the owners want their day in court to show that their lot does not include covered wetlands, well, as a practical matter, that is just too bad. Until the EPA sues them, they are blocked from access to the courts, and the EPA may wait as long as it wants before deciding to sue. By that time, the potential fines may easily have reached the millions. In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable.

We’ve still got a long way to go to restore basic property rights in this country, and the Sackett’s still have to fight the EPA on the merits of the case as they seek to disprove the claim that their own property is a “wetland,” much less a “navigable water” of which the Act supposedly deals, despite having no water. But at least now they have their Constitutional due process rights recognized*, so that they may challenge EPA’s jack-booted thugs in court without first having to rack up millions in fines waiting for EPA to allow them to do so.

EPA designated “wetland”

*To avoid spreading misinformation, I should clarify that the court did not have to draw upon the Due Process clause, as they found a sufficient statutory basis.

Monday

25

October 2010

0

COMMENTS

Environmental Red-Tape Hinders Border Security

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Energy and the Environment, Waste & Government Reform

No matter your position on enforcement of the US border, this report should demonstrate how ineffective government is, as a general principle, at executing the tasks it chooses to take on:

Several White House agencies charged with enforcing environmental laws are preventing thousands of Border Patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border from disrupting illicit trafficking operations, according to a study by the investigative arm of Congress.

The report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that about 15 percent of the 26 Border Patrol stations in the southwestern region say the Interior Department and the Agriculture Department have prevented them from catching illegal aliens coming over the border.

…Under federal law, before Border Patrol agents can build roads or establish surveillance posts on this land, they must first receive permission from the land managing agencies. This process can take months while the land management agencies conduct tests to ensure the environmental safety of the land and its species, the GAO report said, resulting in the souring of actionable intelligence with the ranks of the Border Patrol.

Environmental law is a convoluted mess unparalleled in its ability to produce bureaucratic red-tape. We’re getting to the point where one can hardly take a step without first clearing it with four different agencies, conducting three environmental impact reports, defending against two lawsuits from environmental groups, and then after all that, learning that there’s some endangered partridge in a pear tree that will prevent you from proceeding. The weight of our excessive bureaucracy is dragging all aspects of government and society down.

Thursday

7

October 2010

1

COMMENTS

EPA's Newest Overreach: Regulating Dust

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

The EPA, which easily contends for the dubious distinction of being the most flagrantly unconstitutional of our government’s many unconstitutional activities, has found yet another vehicle through which to expand its near dictatorial powers: dust.

What horrible substance is the EPA trying to protect us from now? Dust.

…Kelsey Huber, writing for “The Foundry,” a blog of The Heritage Foundation, explains that “when EPA regulations were first applied to particulates in 1971, they were created to target soot,” which consists of carbon particles resulting from the incomplete combustion of coal, oil, wood and other fuels, and soot actually is harmful, in sufficient quantities. “Dust,” on the other hand, is merely soil that has gone airborne.

Apparently, soot is no longer a problem, or perhaps the agency just realized that it wasn’t creating enough turmoil for the country. We can’t be sure. In any case, the EPA now wants to regulate dust.

…Mr. Huber continues: “From this regulation, several problems arise. First, while human activity can create dust, it is also … a natural occurrence. How can it be effectively regulated?” A fair question.

Be careful ballplayers. The next time you slide into second, you might just be visited by the environmental gestapo.

Ok, that’s not actually likely, but the costs for this nonsensical proposed power grab are real:

…[A]nytime some government body imposes new requirements on businesses, one result is an increase in the cost of doing business, and in this case the cost of domestic food products will rise accordingly. When a farmer works his fields producing the food we eat, that may stir up some dust. Is the EPA going to fine farmers for planting or harvesting food if in the process of doing so they kick up some dust?

Does that mean that farmers will have to water fields before working them? How much is that going to cost in additional water use and time? Some crops, like corn, cannot be harvested that way.

Tamara Thies, chief environmental counsel for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, said the regulations under consideration would prove twice as stringent as the current standard.

“It would be virtually impossible for many critical U.S. industries to comply with this standard, even with use of best management practices to control dust,” she said.

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives