« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

When Did the EPA Jump the Shark?

A cautionary tale about bureaucracy and mission creep.

Iron Eyes Cody cried at the sight of polluted waters and skies in a famous public service announcement, first aired in 1971. Old Iron Eyes may have been a faux-Indian, but his message resonated with people. The Crying Indian PSA was one of the most successful ever.

It resonated because it was true. In the early ’70s, the environment was a mess. Urban skies were noticeably tinged in sepia/grey. Rivers and streams were often clogged with discarded debris and fouled with chemical sludge.

April 1970 saw the first Earth Day. In December of the same year, the Environmental Protection Agency was born.

The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, with the Clean Water Act to follow in 1972. 1973 brought the Endangered Species Act. [Note: see comments. The Fish & Wildlife Service & NOAA are the lead ESA agencies, with EPA in a support role. I stand corrected. Ed.]

Gradually, the environment improved. The bald eagle and the American alligator came back from the brink of extinction. Air quality improved, there was less litter, and the phosphate foam disappeared from streams.

And, rightly or wrongly, EPA got the credit. As the hippies of my generation greyed, they remembered their Earth Day Groove-In fondly.

Fast forward to 2011: the EPA has become a stifling, job-killing bureaucracy. What happened? When did the EPA jump the shark?

EPA takes credit for cleaning the air of Six Principal Pollutants: Lead, Carbon Monoxide, Ozone, Pariculate Matter, Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Dioxide.

The snail darter and the spotted owl were harbingers. The 1.6 gallon-per-flush toilet brought the EPA into the Inner Sanctum of the average American’s home; in 1994, it should have been our clarion call.

In California, restrictions on brush-clearing favor the kangaroo rat’s habitat over humans’ habitations. In West Texas, a 3-inch lizard threatens to shut down oil drilling.

Beyond the Endangered Species Trump Card, the EPA keeps expanding its purview. The alphabet-soup of CERCLA and other Superfund-related legislation has benefited legions of environmental attorneys and consultants with precious little progress in cleaning up actual pollution. Under President Clinton’s Executive Order, the EPA made an issue of “environmental justice”, based on the anecdotal observation that oil refineries, landfills and chemical plants tend not to be built near posh neighborhoods and country clubs. Frustrated by inaction on Anthropogenic Global Warming, EPA expanded the definition of “pollutant” to cover carbon dioxide, which we exhale and green plants depend on for life. EPA has pushed to set acceptable urban ozone levels lower than the natural levels in Yellowstone Park.

But if commercial or property interests push back as the EPA expands its scope, they are characterized as “anti-environment”, without a critical look at the value of the regulation. The public in general is supportive of “the environment”, which translates into popular support of the EPA. Few are interested in cost/benefit analyses or even common sense.

But this screed is less an indictment of the EPA in particular than it is an indictment of bureaucracy in general. The problem is that budget growth is structurally built into the system. “Draconian budget cuts” are in fact decreases in a previously-projected rate of growth, not true cuts. Anything that grows at an annual rate of 8% doubles in size in just nine years. By not exercising fiscal restraint, meaning zero-based budgeting, weak politicians tacitly accept “mission creep”.

The bureaucracies have grown too large, too complex and too arrogant to accept Congressional oversight. They have expropriated legislative authority with “rulemaking”, and they enforce the laws as they see fit.

It’s not just the EPA, it’s virtually every branch of the government.

It’s killing our freedom and our prosperity.

We need conservative leaders with the cojones to stop it.

The Baby Cuckoo: my favorite metaphor for the result of unchecked bureaucratic growth. (The cuckoo is a parasite, not an endangered species!)

Cross-posted at stevemaley.com.


COMMENTS

  • kipling

    He has dealt with them in Texas. He has kept them from smothering private enterprise.

    In a Perry Presidency, I think we could look for major reform of the EPA.

    If someone else is the nominee, I don’t care who he/she chooses for a VP. I want to know who he plans to put in the cabinet and especially as head of the EPA.

  • beric

    Banning DDT due to “thinning eggshells” which were never proven. And now we have a global ban, yet millions dying a year due to malaria.

    Or the CFC ban, also a complete fabrication.

    “The CFC ban empowered and emboldened the eco-left. It paved the way for their next big scam. The environmentalists scored a big win when they finally banned DDT and doomed millions to a bleak death. Their subsequent eco-scares were not so successful. They were never able to affect global action in their belief in zero population growth. Widespread starvation and scarcity of resources has not happened. Pesticides and herbicides have proven not to be deadly to children. Acid rain has not resulted in widespread deforestation. High power transmission lines do not cause cancer. The use of chlorine produces more safe, potable water than any other intervention. The CFC ban gave them a “win,” and it was based on some of the most specious, tenuous science one can imagine. But it proved a point: Proven science need not trump environmental ideology.”
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_cfc_ban_global_warmings_pi.html

    Both of these actions were right in the 1970′s, and they’ve resulted in unnecessary deaths and economic losses due to politics and shoddy science. It’s why I’m highly skeptical of any “science” that claims to pit the economy vs. the environment today.

    • ncrdbl1

      The CFC ban was unbelievable and caused by false data. The stated ozone depletion rate of R-22 was overstated by 10 fold. Spent 30 years in the HVAC business. There was a three year period recently where my cost for A/C units went up over 100% due to EPA regulations. There was a 60% increase IN A SINGLE YEAR. Now the production of R-22 is outlawed and it has led to ANOTHER increase in equipment cost. Right before i retired i saw for the first time in 30 years a period where large groups of people could NOT afford to replace A/C units due to the massive increase in cost. US jobs are eliminated by these EPA regulations and people turn to window mounted single room units from Saudi Arabia, WHEN they can find them.

  • Joe Cor

    When Congress abdicated its law-making responsibility and invested it in a bureaucracy, they probably sewed the seeds for what has happened. Laws should have been passed on an individual basis, not made the purview of bureaucrats. With no accountability, there has been nothing to rein the EPA in.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    up our act when we could afford that luxury. The real lesson is that libs never are willing to declare victory even when the the air gets cleaner as more SUVs are on the road.

    Just now, this Great Depression II is akin to Pearl Harbor. Americans need jobs now.

  • Menlo

    I don’t think it’s wise to make broad quantitative judgments of “government” or whole categories of laws or regulations.

    Scaling back environmental regulations in general is no good if it eliminates the sensible things that we all support and agree upon in favor of the disingenuous acts intended to do little more than serve a few special interests.

    There are many things government and government agencies including the EPA should do that they don’t, and there are more that should go away. Just as unconscionable as the toilet ban (enacted in 1992 by the way) is that cities have been allowed to intentionally dump poisonous industrial waste into the municipal water supplies “for the children” for over half a century.

    It’s easy to criticize what’s going on right now, but it has all been spurred by Congressional action. All else is merely the shifting aggressiveness of “interpretation” by the President’s appointees. That could happen whether there was a big agency or not. The problem is not one of “how much” but rather “what specifically.”

    The same case can be made in almost every area of government regulation. A purely quantitative approach seems ignorant and short-sighted. Government inaction and “cuts” can always be selectively applied.

    • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

      What “broad quantitative judgments” are you referring to?

      Do you know what “quantitative” means? Or “disingenuous”?

      What “approach” is ignorant and short-sighted? I made a few observations; I don’t think I advocated any “approach”.

      The toilet thing may have passed in 1992, but it took effect in 1994. What difference does it make anyway?

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        Once you employ people to regulate, to keep their jobs, they must continually regulate more.

      • Menlo

        You imply that the problem is the amount of regulations or the size of government. It’s the nature of the regulations that are the problem and that we should stay focused on.

        As for the toilet ban, the roll call votes are still posted online. I found it interesting to see which members of Congress supported it (including a certain candidate for President), and which ones opposed it.

  • renl57

    It wasn’t the EPA that took action on the snail darter and spotted owl. It was the Fish & Wildlife Service, under the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act, the strongest such legislation in the world, is environmentalism gone wild–but it’s not related to the EPA.

    I understand the point you’re trying to make, but you need to get your facts straight here.

    So when did the EPA jump the shark? In the late 1970s. The country was facing a supply-side stagflation crisis–but everything the EPA does (and the Endangered Species Act too) is designed to slow down development. In a strong economy we could tolerate this. In stagflation, we couldn’t.

    As one journalist put it in 1980: “Workers taking deep breaths of pure fresh air, as they walked past shuttered factories on the way to the unemployment office.”

    Environmentalism is really a luxury of affluence and prosperity. When you’ve got the cash, you can spend some of it to be cleaner. When you’re unemployed or bankrupt, that takes precedence.

    • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

      You’re exactly right, and I should know better.

      Mea culpa, and thanks.

      • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

        … Office of Pesticide Programs, which regulates residual pesticides in foods, etc.http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/esa.html

        Your point remains, F&WS and NOAA are the lead agencies.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          “E” though…smile

  • drfredc

    Mission creep, or lack of walls?

    If the Preamble of the Constitution were followed, the EPA would be violating the basic “preserve liberty clause” with most of it’s activities.

    Sure, there’s nothing wrong with promoting the general welfare (and by extension, the enviroment) with a few good laws here and there. However, there should be walls to such actions — when these actions come at an increasing extensive cost of our liberties, they have gone too far.

    Like many of the left’s assaults on the American Dream, it’s generally only possible because the left has chosen to purposefully ignore the Preamble’s role as the guiding light for how our Constitution should be implemented.

    The simplest solution is to simple pass a law, signed by the President (hence agreed upon by two branches of government) that the Preamble has standing in interpretation of our Constitution. Add in a few examples as initial guidance — like how ‘preserving liberty for our posterity’ means we can’t be borrowing from future generations to pay for today’s political wish lists (aka a generationally balanced budget), or how responsible individually driven environmental stewardship should trump top down bureaucratic regulations. Reinstalling the walls defined by the Preamble would toss a whole heap of left wing Judicial activism and laws on the compost heap and put the courts on a path to help correct as well as prevent these sorts of abuses in the future.

    If anything, just putting such legislation up for debate would clearly and quickly define what liberals (from both parties) stand for — no boundaries to government power… And against common sense Constitutional boundaries for government and it’s various bureaucracies…

  • hungarianfalcon

    For sure it was well under way when Browner, in a push for tighter particulate emission regs. as head of the EPA, testified before congress (article was in the C&E News) that the EPA didn’t have sufficient proof that tightening particulate matter regs. would have a benefit, but they figured it would or, at the least couldn’t hurt. Hence, it was OK to tighten the regs. Business impact be damed.

    I was a grad student at the time (I’d guess it was ~1996-8) and Browner has been on my radar as being nothing but trouble ever since. I’ve been proven right.

    I have no problem with regulations but that breach of proof has me pretty much reflexively opposed to any environmental regs. proposed by environmentalists. When we start doing things because we “think” they can’t hurt, we’re one step away from governing solely by our emotions.

    Unfortunately, now they are one step ahead of me by just making up their proof (AGW, hockey stick, poor weather station siting, ad nauseum).

    HF

  • greyeagle

    The EPA is running amuck right now. They care nothing for the loss of jobs, and the fact that a lot of their rulings is based on questionable science. I agree with the first poster. Rick Perry has been fighting with the EPA for the last 3 years because of their trying to destroy the energy business in TX. Governor Perry would defund the EPA with the approval of Congress and put them out of a job.

    • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

      They were making the scarecrow in the White House look bad, what with all the energy producing and job creating that was going on in the Lone Star State.(;-)

      • pttx333

        the White House! There will be drilling and jobs galore just as soon as he can get it done. America has untold amounts of oil/gas that b.o. has strangled to a standstill – damn him! Perry has been fighting him over numerous things for 3 years now, and b.o. just hates Texas and Perry and everyone here. The entire country will prosper before too much time goes by – once we ditch the creepy one who presently resides at 1600%

        • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

          I am a native Texan, although currently living in TN, and I fully support Rick Perry’s energy and jobs policies. I personally believe that any of the R candidates would get the economy back on track, but Perry has the most documented track record. Let’s get the scarecrow out of the White House and get this country moving in the right direction again.

          • pttx333

            for you! b.o. and his minions need to be beaten like drums, and I truly believe they will be. I think there are millions of folks who stupidly believed his crapola last election and are now very sorry they voted for him.

            Of course, my choice has been Perry since day one – have voted for him every time he has run and not found him lacking. Have I ever disagreed with him? Of course, but I’ve never agreed 100% with anyone – not even myself! ;-) But he still has the least warts of anyone that I know of in politics, and I do know that he does what he says he will do. He is a man of his word.

          • tailfins1959

            In my house we don’t say “Environmentalist”, we say Earth Worshipers. This isn’t about public health anymore, it’s a religion. I resent having a modern day version of Druidism imposed on our society.

        • trevorb

          is going to take some time, but even if we only increase our production by 1 millionbpd within the next 4 years, it’s still oil we don’t have to import from places like Saudi Arabia.

    • Menlo

      Some blame “deregulation” for the state’s recent utility problems. Despite happening under Bush, Perry has boasted about his role in getting it passed.

      The EPA has nearly unanimous support from Congress. It’s never going away.

      • renl57

        The notion that we can’t build anything if even one species is threatened is just unworkable.

        When they enacted the thing, they didn’t realize that there are literally millions of different species on earth (not counting even microbe species), and that our building of the American nation must have already obliterated its fair share.

        For example, the Pentagon was built on mud flats, which are usually a thriving ecosystem home to dozens of different species. Wanna bet we wiped out one or two in the course of construction? And if the Endangered Species Act had been around in the 1930s, the Pentagon could never have been built.

        Heck, New York City would still be wilderness.

        Near where I live, the renovation of bridges on an Interstate highway was delayed for many months because the Endangered Species Act had been enacted since the highway was built–and now the planned renovation was endangering some species or other. We’re lucky we didn’t end up having to relocate the entire highway around that species’ habitat.

        • dcacklam

          It was aimed at species like the eagle, wolf, grizzly and alligator…

          And it’s worked quite well in protecting those….

          What was not expected, was that deconstructionist environmental radicals would use it to halt development based on the ‘endangering’ of some grass, insect, etc…

          I wouldn’t be surprised if some environmental group has sued to ‘protect’ bacteria, amoebas, or similar….

          Perhaps the ‘significance’ of the organisim should be factored in somehow (If there are only 10 grizzly bears left in Washington State, protect them… If the ‘endangered species’ is a barely-differentiated variety of grass, sorry, no-go….)

        • Menlo

          I agree entirely, but I’m not sure how it relates to my comment.

  • lee1947

    When Congress allows other divisions of Government to make the rules with the power of LAW they are giving away their Constitutional responsibilities. A Bureaucracy is a system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and proliferation. (Dictionary.com)
    The Peter Principle: In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence. What this means is that work at the lower levels is being by performed by competent personnel. Over time people are promoted and continue to be until they reach that point where they can no longer perform and that is where they stay. So it is safe to say that the EPA and most other Government Agencies are being managed by inconstant personnel.

  • 1stRichard

    It is not when did it, it did it from the start. I was caught up in this mess back in the 70?s working as a mechanic doing propane conversions on cars and trucks. In question was the propane tanks and safety during a crash, tests were made with a locomotive crushing a test car many times with no leaks. According to the regulations of the time, these tests were not adequate. From many company sources, I had learned we were out lobbied by big oil because they did not want the competition. All of these government agencies work together from the start to put in place crony capitalism, you want clean air or cheap fuel forget about it, the government will pick and choose. Diesel efficiency has been around for a long time, twice or more the efficiency of gas but then came the NOX regulations. Can you explain how being forced to use more then twice the amount of fuel at more then twice the cost for all these decades is more ?Green? or any good at all? Almost every regulation from this has consequences, from crony capitalism to wrecking our economy and you failed to convey the enormity of this problem.

  • johnt

    I’m not sure but even at it’s best, both in interpretation and execution, and even early on, the movement had considerable flaws.
    However it did Create Jobs, that supernatural gift of Government that blesses us with the stroke of a pen, a few billion dollars, a horde of dim witted lawyers, those lost, tormented souls charitably called activists[ many of whom will end their lives in asylums], and the steam that pushed it all, wishful thinking coupled with self identified & applied secular sainthood.
    Results, as Steve points out, were another thing, even at the beginning. Scams are scams, motives are as breezes in the summer, and just as ephemeral.

  • rickdeckard

    While the closeted marxists at EPA keep poking and prodding our government on the long slog to ecotopia, the folks over at the UN have been very busy stretching the term “wish list” to it’s very limits. In a summary that reminds us once again of the media’s continued war on knowledge, Lord Monckton covers the highlights of the latest collaboration between the green lobby and the third world here. It’s at Anthony Watts’ site, so lots more is available about what else just came out of Durban.

    I really like the part about achieving CO2 levels that are too low to sustain plant life.

    Gotta believe Steve is interpreting the COP17 entrails while we sleep. Looking forward to his analysis.

    (Wiping lips with sleeve now.)

    • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

      Between Climategate 2.0 and the Durban conference, there’s a lot going on over there now.

      Thanks for that link. These folks are truly idiots.