- Israel hits symbols of Hamas rule; scores killed
- Mississippi abortion law can’t be enforced
- Teacher who survived Sandy Hook has book deal
- Jury awards Jesse Ventura $1.8M in case vs. ‘American Sniper’ author Chris Kyle
- Middle Eastern firm’s deal to manage U.S. cargo port raises security concerns
- Bob McDonnell’s defense: Lonely wife developed ‘crush’ on CEO
- Chinese hackers stole ‘huge quantities’ of sensitive data on Israel’s Iron Dome
- House Republicans unveil bill to speed deportations of border children
- Californians protest middle school for hiring white man to teach cultural studies
- Killer’s sentencing overturned because mother couldn’t find seat in courtroom
KNIGHT: Taming the EPA monster
Supreme Court ruling strikes a blow in ongoing battle
Question of the Day
Slowly, inexorably, the monster is being driven back to its lair. Its days of terrorizing villagers may soon be over. I wish I were talking about the federal government, but it’s the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), better known as the Environmental Protection-or-else Agency.
At one time, it was a harmless little back-alley operation that stumbled upon a secret growth formula, downed the whole vat and began wreaking havoc. You won’t find this account on the EPA’s official website, but you will find ample evidence of the monster’s ambitions to control the world, such as its quest for “environmental justice.”
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court slapped the monster right across the chops in Sackett v. EPA. An Idaho couple, Chantell and Mike Sackett, were building a home but fell victim to an EPA compliance order in 2005. Their building permit was revoked after the EPA charged that they had violated the Clean Water Act by filling in their lot with rocks and dirt.
“The Sacketts were denied any hearing to contest the Compliance Order by the EPA,” American Civil Rights Union general counsel Peter Ferrara wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. “[T]he Sacketts can ignore the EPA’s Compliance Order … That course entails incurring EPA fines of as much as $750,000 per month, $9,000,000 for a year.”
The court’s unanimous decision, which overturns - yet again - a wacky 9th Circuit ruling, will allow the Sacketts to appeal the order in court instead of going through a lengthy, expensive wetlands-permit process. They might still lose, but at least they won’t be bankrupted fighting a tyrannical bureaucracy.
Created on Dec. 2, 1970, the EPA began with an executive order from President Nixon that combined several clean-water and other anti-pollution agencies into one basket. The full Congress never officially approved the monster’s creation, although the plan was vetted by Senate and House committees.
The newborn EPA had a budget of just more than $1 billion and 4,084 employees. Not bad for a startup.
This past week, EPA Administrator Janet P. Jackson told two House Energy and Commerce subcommittees that the EPA’s 2013 budget request is $8.3 billion, a 1.2 percent decrease from 2012. The agency has 17,000 employees.
This is pocket change and a volleyball team compared to other federal agencies. But over the years, despite its relatively small size, the EPA has acquired vast powers.
Just after Earth Day came into being, Congress enacted a slew of environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act (1972), Coastal Zone Management Act (1972), Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (1972) and Endangered Species Act (1973). “The Rules and Regulations issued under these laws numbered into many thousands,” an official EPA history states. “In its early years EPA alone placed about 1,500 rulemaking notices in the Federal Register annually.”
Some of them did a lot of good. Smokestack industries could no longer pour tons of pollutants into the air and water. The Hudson River, which was declared an open sewer in the 1960s, bounced back smartly.
Emboldened, the EPA kept growing. A big breakthrough came in 2007, when the Supreme Court, whose justices moonlight as scientists, found that carbon dioxide, which we breathe out, was a “greenhouse gas” the EPA could regulate.
In 2009, President Obama’s EPA announced a massive campaign to thwart “climate change.” I’m told that deep within the bowels of the EPA complex in Washington’s Federal Triangle is a diabolical plan to fit us all with muzzles, but this probably is just a rumor.
The good news is that the EPA’s greenhouse gas limits are being weighed this month by the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District.
Meanwhile, nine state attorneys general - Tom Horne of Arizona, Pam Bondi of Florida, Sam Olens of Georgia, Bill Schuette of Michigan, Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma, Marty J. Jackley of South Dakota, Alan Wilson of South Carolina, Greg Abbott of Texas and Kenneth T. Cuccinelli of Virginia - have announced a major push-back against unconstitutional overreaches by the Obama administration, including the EPA.
About the Author
Robert Knight is senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for The Washington Times.
TWT Video Picks
Get Breaking Alerts
- Boehner rules out impeachment: 'Scam started by Democrats'
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- Tactical advantage: Russian military shows off impressive new gear
- Obama's brother wears Hamas scarf bearing anti-Israel slogans in photo
- McCLAUGHRY: Finish off the "Islamic State" quickly and cheaply
- Obama: 'Not a new Cold War,' but new Russia sanctions announced
- Smugglers, rainstorm combine to poke holes in border fence
- Hillary Clinton: Forget Obama, George W. Bush made her 'proud to be an American'
- D.C. seeks to stay judge's order allowing gun owners to carry in public
- Kerry's credibility questioned as fighting in Gaza rages