BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

EPA 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

10

October 2011

0

COMMENTS

Overgovernment: Pay Back Edition

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Energy and the Environment, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

Here’s another feel-good edition of Overgovernment. A man subjected to persecution by an out of control EPA has been awarded $1.7 million. The details of the case are outrageous (Hat-tip: Cato@Liberty):

The just-resolved case started in 1996 when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordered its SWAT-like special operations team (equipped with M-16 rifles and police dogs) to raid the Canal Refinery, Mr. Vidrine’s workplace.  The raid led to a criminal investigation against Mr. Vidrine for allegedly unlawful storage and disposal of hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Drugs and Hypnotism.  When asked to prove its case, the EPA turned to its star witness, Mike Franklin, who claimed he had taken samples of the allegedly hazardous material and had conducted tests proving Mr. Vidrine’s guilt.  The only problem is that neither Mr. Franklin nor the EPA could produce these tests. Whoops. With the credibility of the case already crumbling, it then came to light that Mr. Franklin suffered an addiction to cocaine, an addiction that often results in psychosis: loss of contact with reality, including false beliefs. Determined to press on, the EPA tried to prove its case by extracting truthful information from Mr. Franklin through hypnosis. But this too failed.

Personal Vendettas. Seemingly oblivious to the evidence against his case, government prosecutor Keith Phillips pressed forward with such zeal that some people began to ask questions. These questions produced interesting answers: First, it was discovered that Phillips sought to prolong the case against Vidrine so he could continue his affair with the FBI agent assigned to the case (Ekko Barnhill) instead of returning home to his wife in Dallas. Second, Phillips harbored a personal vendetta against Vidrine and seemingly wanted to do everything possible to make his life miserable. These motives fall a bit short of the “pursuit of justice” that is supposed to guide EPA cases.

Ruling. The 142-page ruling relates this “you can’t make this stuff up” story in a way that reflects Judge Rebecca Doherty’s obvious frustration for Phillips’ actions on behalf of the U.S. government. The judge wrote that Phillips, “set out with intent and reckless and callous disregard for anyone’s rights other than his own, and reckless disregard for the processes and power which had been bestowed on him, to effectively destroy another man’s life.”

Further good news comes from the fact that the government thug responsible for the case is actually paying a personal price (one just generally assumes in such situations that there will be little to no repercussions for such behavior):

A former U.S. EPA agent who spearheaded the wrongful indictment of an refining plant manager — possibly to cover up his affair with an FBI agent — has pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and perjury in a related civil case.

Keith Phillips, who signed a plea bargain yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, faces up to 10 years in prison on the obstruction of justice count and five years for the perjury count.

Unfortunately, too many government thugs go unpunished for similar abuses, but at least in this one case justice seems to have been done.

Tuesday

19

July 2011

0

COMMENTS

EPA Plots New Economic Sabotage Strategy

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy

Facing resistance over cap-and-trade and other initiatives, the EPA is opening up a new front in its war on economic prosperity:

The EPA wants to cut the national ambient air-quality standard to between 60 and 70 parts per billion, which would push thousands of communities over the current limit of 75 ppb. That, in turn, would make it more difficult to attract new business.

“Is this really another uncertainty you want to throw at the business community right now?” asked Ross Eisenberg, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s environment and energy counsel. “It just doesn’t make much sense.”

…Now, Mr. Eisenberg said, he is hearing the standard will be set around 65 ppb. “Anything in that range would be too low,” he said. It would even force respected national parks like Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon out of compliance.

Communities that fail to drop within the limit will be hit with fines and forced to place restrictions on businesses. One of the biggest restrictions will be a rule that they have to tear down one or more buildings before they can build a new one.

“So you wind up scaling down,” Mr. Eisenberg said. “You’re having less business at that point. You’re taking more away than you’re adding.”

This is just Keynesian make-work by another name. Destroying buildings before you can make new ones, digging ditches for no purpose, it’s all the same: a waste of resources. But at least we’ll have plenty of “green jobs” destroying the prosperity of yesteryear and ushering in our future of sustainable, eco-friendly poverty.

Wednesday

9

February 2011

0

COMMENTS

Reining in the Bureaucracy

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Energy and the Environment

Like an unindicted co-conspirator, the bureaucracy is the unofficially acknowledged fourth branch of government. In the centuries since the Constitution was passed, it has grown exponentially in both size and power. Congress has freely delegated power to ruling technocrats to such a degree that it is at least constitutionally questionable. With this in mind:

There is an effort by Rand Paul requiring “both houses of Congress to sign off on all major rules, which are defined as any regulation with a total yearly impact of $100 million or more.”

There’s also a growing effort to rein in the EPA, the most flagrant of extra-constitutional regulatory bodies.

I can only hope that these renewed efforts to rein in various regulatory bodies bears fruit.

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.

Wednesday

26

August 2009

0

COMMENTS

Politicized EPA

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment

The Environmental Protection Agency has significant autonomy and regulatory authority.  It is practically a lawmaking body unto itself.  This is problematic, as it is obviously not an elected body.  It’s made worse by the fact that EPA is also heavily politicized.

Dr. Alan Carlin has become a thorn in the side of global warming fanatics by insisting that the EPA look at the actual science behind global warming. It was not good enough, he argued, to accept at face value the reports of political organizations like the United Nations.

Now, the EPA is trying to shut down the office in which Dr. Carlin works.

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