Another description for regulatory entity is presumption of guilt until proven innocent. They place the burden of proof in laps of the accused, entire sectors of the economy, while ignoring the overarching basic fact that in society there are law abiders and law breakers often on both sides of the equation regardless of what entity is making the rules. In truth, laws and regulations only have impact, desired or otherwise, as long as people are willing to abide by them. There are always going to be those who don’t abide by them regardless of topic.
There are murderers in society as well as polluters. From the one off life taker to the serial sort murderers likely have taken and endangered more lives on the whole than those perceived as potential polluters, yet we do not have a Life Protection Agency or associated co-ops that assign bureaucrats to oversee each human being, making each of them prove individually they are not a murderer or face a fine and imprisonment as if they are. But we have no problem doing this to corporate entities which are really just associations of people. It’s like living that trick question, “Do you still beat your wife?”
I far prefer my own brand of cynicism which assumes that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and there will be those who are indeed guilty, regulatory agency or not. It is more consistent with the 4th and 5th Amendments and the basic tenet of our judicial system than the kinds of regulatory boondoggles the Feds have going down.
Aside from the presumption of guilt, like those “greedy bankers” and “big oil polluters”, despite the 4th and 5th Amendments and the basic theory of good vs. bad in society at large, it stands to question whether Federal regulatory agencies and sponsored co-ops as they currently exist are consistent with the meaning of the words “federation” and “federal” as they are demonstrated in the US Constitution. It is not a national government that is canonized in the Constitution. We have a federation of sovereign states in a representative republic. The federal government was intended to do only that which states cannot do for themselves and the exercise of federal authority over matters not delineated in the enumerated powers requires consent of the states through the constitutional amendment process. That process does not include the participation of the judicial branch in the form of constitutional interpretation that renders entire sections moot. I hate to inform them, federal justices to congress critters and candidates alike, that I can read the plain English in which our founding document was written for a reason and it says what it says until it says something else.
Even if by some stretch of the General Welfare and Commerce clauses the federal government has authority over all it claims, there are still other serious questions about delegation of congressional authority to the executive branch that arise from falling into the murky gray areas. These are not dealt with in the constitution, I believe, because those powers were not delegated initially or subsequently to either congress or the executive and the whole concept conflicts with the 10th Amendment that says if it’s not written here as a power, it’s reserved to the states or the people. Hence, there is no definition of these powers exercised or limitations and boundaries that the Federal government cannot cross.
About Tom Reed specifically, he’s on camera endorsing this condition and the perpetuation of abuse of power. In addition, the facts of the fracturing process do not justify what it would cost to oversee it. There really is no out for him on this one because we know that for every bureaucracy created there is another lobby springing up and he wants to create government jobs in the disposal of the frac slurry which means more union employees and more fleecing of the taxpayers over unreasonable pay and pensions without any real work to do. He tries to paint it as a win-win situation, but in reality we all lose except those who are on the side of government.

Her name was bandied about as being a potential candidate for the special election, if and when there is one. She has been the Monroe County Supervisor for several years now and far more a pragmatist than Tom Reed. A couple of years ago there was a big brewhaha over cuts to social programs and she took her argument to the people saying something like it’s either this or raise taxes substantially. She has no problem taking and stand on the facts and does her homework to find out what they are *before* taking a position.