Is the EPA Being Treated Fairly?

Cammando got me on the subject of the EPA (or Obama's EPA according to him). I'm not well-versed on them so I did some reading.

I think many (I did) assume that a ruling by the EPA today is a result of the thoughts/ideas/goals of the current President. Not true.

I think many do not realize that sometimes the EPA is forced into action by the courts.

So is is possible we don't fully understand how the EPA works and blast them unfairly or make them the scapegoat?

Very possible, but do the courts force things because they are to liberal?

The blame on mountain top removal is on both sides. Previous practices by irresponsible coal companies and unrealistic EPA rules/policies.

BUT the flat out stalling and refusal to grant mining permits that have been in the pipeline for YEARS and have had environmental studies showing no neglect or harm...........and people IN the EPA saying if Obama gets defeated, you will get your permit, if he wins, you will NOT.......well that just good old fashioned politics.

And before you ask, I do not have an article.....but I have sources.

Please e-mail Arch Coal East Ky. and Arch Coal Beckley and talk to the permit people.

Very possible, but do the courts force things because they are to liberal?

 

The blame on mountain top removal is on both sides. Previous practices by irresponsible coal companies and unrealistic EPA rules/policies.

 

 

BUT the flat out stalling and refusal to grant mining permits that have been in the pipeline for YEARS and have had environmental studies showing no neglect or harm...........and people IN the EPA saying if Obama gets defeated, you will get your permit, if he wins, you will NOT.......well that just good old fashioned politics.

 

 

And before you ask, I do not have an article.....but I have sources.

 

Please e-mail Arch Coal East Ky. and Arch Coal Beckley and talk to the permit people.

Good stuff. In my quick perusal I found an article about the Arch company having a permit revoked for mountaintop removal. I'm certainly no expert on the subject but what I have seen and what seems to be common sense is that it's terrible for the streams, lakes, and rivers below it. The main argument I saw in the article I found was "jobs." We simply cannot issue permits just because they produce jobs. If we're damaging water jobs are irrelevant.

What should I ask when I email? Do they have some document they'll send?

I understand that the EPA was created to do a good thing, but like all government programs it has become a bloated, bureaucratic, nightmarish, job killing entity.

It is run by zealous bureaucrats who have little or no understanding of the business world or the daily life of average Americans. They walk in circles of like minded individuals. I know these types because I have taught with many who think like they do. All they have done is get their degrees, go into education and/or government with no real life experiences of what is it like to work in the private sector or own a business. A prime example is Obama.

I understand that the EPA was created to do a good thing, but like all government programs it has become a bloated, bureaucratic, nightmarish, job killing entity.

It is run by zealous bureaucrats who have little or no understanding of the business world or the daily life of average Americans. They walk in circles of like minded individuals. I know these types because I have taught with many who think like they do. All they have done is get their degrees, go into education and/or government with no real life experiences of what is it like to work in the private sector or own a business. A prime example is Obama.

Is it your opinion that there is no ROI on their rulings? Does MACT or the Clean Air Transport pay for itself?

Examples of major rulings that you disagree with?

Good stuff. In my quick perusal I found an article about the Arch company having a permit revoked for mountaintop removal. I'm certainly no expert on the subject but what I have seen and what seems to be common sense is that it's terrible for the streams, lakes, and rivers below it. The main argument I saw in the article I found was "jobs." We simply cannot issue permits just because they produce jobs. If we're damaging water jobs are irrelevant.

 

What should I ask when I email? Do they have some document they'll send?

Ask about the stream standards and studies. They might blow you off, they might open up.

Does it have an impact on streams? Yes. Is it terrible, it could be, and it also could be negligible. The problem is the standards that they had, coal companies are/was meeting/exceeding. So they raised them, little by little, to unrealistic and or unattainable levels......wanting stream to be cleaner than they would be untouched in some cases. I am not joking or exaggerating. Coal companies are also arguing they have LESS impact on streams than highway/interstate building in The Appalachia's than state contractors do with their valley fills and stream re-routing when building Corridor G and pretty much all of US 119.

....and independent studies have proven them correct.

I know a lot because I have family and close friends working for Arch, Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals/Office of Mine Safety and Licensing, and companies that work for the EPA doing impact/stream studies. Like this board, they are a mix of left, right and center in politics so I get a good cross-section. I will add that 90% of them are in line of thinking that the EPA is too far reaching and The Obama Administration has a goal of bankrupting coal, oil companies.....and get this natural gas is in their cross hairs next.

I understand that the EPA was created to do a good thing, but like all government programs it has become a bloated, bureaucratic, nightmarish, job killing entity.

It is run by zealous bureaucrats who have little or no understanding of the business world or the daily life of average Americans. They walk in circles of like minded individuals. I know these types because I have taught with many who think like they do. All they have done is get their degrees, go into education and/or government with no real life experiences of what is it like to work in the private sector or own a business. A prime example is Obama.

There is a real disconnect with those people who work for the EPA in the field and those who work in the office, trust me.

Ask about the stream standards and studies. They might blow you off, they might open up.

 

Does it have an impact on streams? Yes. Is it terrible, it could be, and it also could be negligible. The problem is the standards that they had, coal companies are/was meeting/exceeding. So they raised them, little by little, to unrealistic and or unattainable levels......wanting stream to be cleaner than they would be untouched in some cases. I am not joking or exaggerating. Coal companies are also arguing they have LESS impact on streams than highway/interstate building in The Appalachia's than state contractors do with their valley fills and stream re-routing when building Corridor G and pretty much all of US 119.

....and independent studies have proven them correct.

 

I know a lot because I have family and close friends working for Arch, Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals/Office of Mine Safety and Licensing, and companies that work for the EPA doing impact/stream studies. Like this board, they are a mix of left, right and center in politics so I get a good cross-section. I will add that 90% of them are in line of thinking that the EPA is too far reaching and The Obama Administration has a goal of bankrupting coal, oil companies.....and get this natural gas is in their cross hairs next.

I have always said the issue is:

There is a difference between being a good steward and being a fanatic. IMO we are good stewards.

Are there people who knowingly do the wrong thing - yes there are. And they should be punished severely.

My son works in the environmental resources and alterative energies field, and he would be the first to tell you that the people at the top of the EPA are fanatics. He hates working with them and thinks they give conservationists a bad name.

Is it your opinion that there is no ROI on their rulings? Does MACT or the Clean Air Transport pay for itself?

 

Examples of major rulings that you disagree with?

The EPA has done good things, but as others have stated there are the fanatics in the system and they are in control and have taken the regulations to the extreme.

An example is the couple who went to the Supreme Court to be allowed to build on their land. They have been denied the use of their land , because of exteme interpretations of the regulations.

Farmers now have to go to extremes with pasturing their cattle, because of the manure they leave in the field. Some of the extremists are even trying to keep farmers from raising dust in their farming operations. Maybe we should also regulate bears and birds as well.

It is not all with the big stuff, although I do believe the fanatics are trying to create a world that does not exist, even if man was not here.

Legislature: make the laws

Judiciary: interpret the laws

Executive: enforce the laws

Unelected, unaccountable, executive-branch bureaucrats making law through regulation is NOT the way this government was intended to run.

Anyone know the current status of the federal legislation that would mandate congress rule up or down on any federal gov't regulation with an projected economic impact over a certain amount? Sorry, I can't remember the name of the bill or the exact dollar amount.

The EPA has done good things, but as others have stated there are the fanatics in the system and they are in control and have taken the regulations to the extreme.

An example is the couple who went to the Supreme Court to be allowed to build on their land. They have been denied the use of their land , because of exteme interpretations of the regulations.

Farmers now have to go to extremes with pasturing their cattle, because of the manure they leave in the field. Some of the extremists are even trying to keep farmers from raising dust in their farming operations. Maybe we should also regulate bears and birds as well.

It is not all with the big stuff, although I do believe the fanatics are trying to create a world that does not exist, even if man was not here.

In our community we are required to spend $46,000,000 to upgrade our sewer plant and collection system as a result of EPA action. We are one of many communities in the same boat (Jeffersonville, IN for example is having to spend $120,000,000 to upgrade their system). Are some of the upgrades necessary? Sure they are. But it is taken to such an extreme with machinery and equipment that out dates itself in no time and you are back to square one again with them in no time. Those costs are thrown back on the consumer.

I posted a thread a link that included the oral arguments of the Sackett vs. EPA case.

In that case the couple had purchased a lot. A lot in a developed subdivision, not some plot of land in the wilderness. They received all the local and state permits for proceeding with their build. They started the build process, cleared the lot, brought in fill material and were ready to start construction of the house. Then the EPA showed up.

The EPA claimed the land, that is located in a planned development subdivision, is 'wetlands'. The lot does overlook a lake and sometimes land around a lake may be considered wetlands if there is constant slow moving water flowing over the 'wetlands'. But there are other houses and another road between lot and the lake and no apparent sign of any flowing water on this lot that is part of an overall subdivision.

The EPA issued an order to stop. It then issued an order to return the lot to its original state. After that was done the couple could then request a permit - from the Army Corp of Engineers - to build upon a declared wetlands site. This action would have cost the couple well over $25,000. Only after they had done this could they request the Corp come and inspect the lot. IF the Corp agreed it was wetlands and IF it agreed that the building upon such 'wetlands' posed no hazard it would then issue a special permit. But IF the Corp did not find the lot was wetlands it would not issue a permit - because none would be needed. So if that occurred you would have the EPA claiming one thing and Corp indicating another and there would no resolution for the couple.

The EPA has threatened the couple with fines of up $37,500 per day in the case. The problem raised in this case is due process. The couple wanted to challenge the EPAs actions in court. But were told they could not. And thus, they could get judicial review of the situation and were thus at pure mercy of the EPA.

From the oral arguments:

"Mike and Chantell Sackett are here today because 4 years ago the Environmental Protection Agency issued against them a compliance order charging them with violations of the Clean Water Act, requiring that they restore their property to its alleged predisturbance wetlands condition, and imposing upon them the threat of tens of thousands of dollars per day in civil fines if they did not immediately comply with the order.

...

MR. SCHIFF: For an after-the-fact permit....can only be applied for under the "clearly appropriate" standard in the Corps's regulations.

...

Moreover, there's frankly no guarantee that the Sacketts could even get into court through the permitting process, because the Corps might very well say, well, you know, we don't believe that there are wetlands on the property; and so, we're not going to issue you a permit. And, therefore, there is nothing for the Sacketts to then litigate over in Federal court.

..."

If you ever plan to build a house on or even within a mile or so of any body of water this is a case worthy of watching. It shows the power wielded by this agency.

EPA should be ABOLISHED, period.

Sacketts - 9, EPA - 0

Justices that is....

Supreme Court Sides With Idaho Property Owners Over EPA | Fox News

Supreme Court Rules Against EPA in Landmark Case | | TheBlaze.com

Unfair to the EPA? Impossible. They are thugs. Listen to the Fox video. It details outrageous acts and policies that were found via a friend of the court briefing.

So, would businesses/municipalities/etc voluntarily "do the right thing" without an overseeing agency?