Tagged: EPA Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 5:43 PM on 05/04/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , EPA,   

    Gotta Love WaPo 

    [T]he agency ought to have asked itself years ago whether it really needed to hassle a couple seeking to build a home in an existing subdivision, helping to justify every negative caricature of the EPA that Republican presidential hopefuls peddled during the primary race. Perhaps the agency would have been able to keep more of its regulatory power if it had been more judicious.

    The lesson for Ms. Jackson and her boss, President Obama, from these two episodes is clear: The agency’s officers must have a clear sense when to deploy its mighty power and when to exercise discretion.

    The Washington Post Editorial Board on the EPA’s abuse of power.

    The saddest part of this isn’t that they believe that the EPA shouldn’t have all this regulatory power, they just want them to use it more discreetly so the republicans can’t bash them with it come election time:

    The justices sided with the Sacketts, granting them — and others in their situation — legal review of the EPA’s judgments. Yet the agency ought to have asked itself years ago whether it really needed to hassle a couple seeking to build a home in an existing subdivision, helping to justify every negative caricature of the EPA that Republican presidential hopefuls peddled during the primary race. Perhaps the agency would have been able to keep more of its regulatory power if it had been more judicious.

    I was just about to write unbelievable.  Then I realized it is believable coming from them.  They, like Obama, have never met a regulation that they don’t like.

    • SignPainterGuy 10:48 PM on 05/04/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Point well taken, but isn`t the Constitution “regulations” ? They HATE it ! They`ve tried to shred it ot ignore it nearly from day 1 !

      • Don 3:39 AM on 05/05/2012 Permalink | Reply

        Great point, SPG. It is so incongruous that they call the Constitution “living and breathing,” yet they want to kill it.

      • mrpcabbage 8:16 AM on 05/05/2012 Permalink | Reply

        Ah yes! The Constitution regulates the government, while our government regulates us. It’s competitive regulation and it chafes them (as it should).

  • just a conservative girl 8:03 PM on 01/09/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , EPA, justice alito, ,   

    Quote of the Day – Justice Alito Edition 

    “You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: ‘You have filled in wetlands, so you can’t build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to, you have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don’t do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000. And by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you.”

    Justice Alito questioning the federal government on EPA regulations.

    • SignPainterGuy 8:33 PM on 01/09/2012 Permalink | Reply

      The EPA is one of the first gooberment agencies that should be dismantled; forbidden ever to exist again. They perhaps HAD a mission of real concern, but now exist only to advance a radical green agenda and take away people`s personal property rights !

      • just a conservative girl 9:54 PM on 01/09/2012 Permalink | Reply

        Personally, I would get rid of Education first. But EPA is up there. I am not even sure I would get rid of it, but I would limit it’s power. I mean really, you just have to do what they say or they fine you thousands of dollars. It sounds like they will get slapped down on this one.

  • Pat Austin 10:51 AM on 08/03/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: EPA, farming   

    EPA Continues Plan to Regulate Farm Dust 

    In one of its more idiotic moves, the EPA is continuing its move to regulate …farm dust.  Farm dust!

    This issue has come up before; in 2009 a federal court upheld the EPA’s right to regulate farm dust when the Bush administration tried to regulate airborne soot and dust:

    The American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council challenged EPA in 2006 over its decision to regulate coarse particulate matter — or dust — in rural areas, arguing that the agency had failed to show any negative health effects associated with the dust (Greenwire, Dec. 15, 2006).  EPA had considered exempting farming and mining operations, but the agency ultimately decided it could not exclude particular industries.

    Farmers then, and now, naturally decry the move as stifling and ridiculous.   Anyone who has ever been on a farm, or on a rural gravel road, knows there’s dust on a farm:

    Farming and agriculture groups said the regulations would hurt their industries, affecting everything from combine dust to feedlot dust and even the dust from gravel roads.

    In February 2009, the Iowa Defense Alliance wrote:

    What the regulations do not do is taking into account the fact that most often farmers do not have control over the creation of this dust. For instance, when you are traveling down the highway and see a farmer planting his field in dry years you see a cloud of dust shadowing the machinery. This dust is created when the machinery stirs up the dirt during the planting process. Or perhaps it is sometime in fall, you see a combine harvesting the beans or corn. As the combine harvests the crop dust is created from the dry plant material in combination with the dirt being stirred up by the combine’s wheels. Another situation when dust is created is not necessarily related to farm work. When a vehicle travels over a dry gravel road dust is created. There really is not much that can be done to quell the production of this dust, but the EPA is insistent on regulating it nonetheless.

    The latest maneuver in the debate is a letter to the EPA signed by 21 senators protesting the move to regulate farm dust as explained in a July 8, 2010, Policy Assessment related to the Clean Air Act.  The new guidelines “would establish the most stringent and unparalleled regulation of dust in our nation’s history.”

    You can read the letter here (pdf – 3 pgs).

    Ed Morrissey at Hot Air wrote about this in March 2009:

    Now, farmers will be held accountable when their dust moves outside of their property lines and towards towns and villages.  That will impose extra cost on them depending on which way the wind blows, an excellent metaphor for Congress but a deadly imposition on a farm sector already struggling with an economic turndown and falling land prices.  The compliance costs to keep dust tamped down will be enormous, and will force out the smaller farmers who can least afford the mitigation costs.  It pushes the productive family farm even further into the anachronism category.

    And he closes:

    We need a strong agricultural sector to produce food as inexpensively as possible with maximum efficiency to keep us fed and healthy.  Dust may provide some health risks, but nothing as acute as poverty and starvation, which existed in much more significant scale in the US before the Green Revolution of the 20th century.

    If such a plan ever moves out of the realm of debate and into practice, it would indeed crush the agriculture industry, especially the family farm.  Large corporate farms might be able to handle the extra costs, but the small farmer doesn’t stand a chance.

    Where do they think our food actually comes from?  It just materializes in a Whole Foods on its own?


    Cross posted at And So it Goes in Shreveport

    • backyardconservative 8:26 AM on 08/04/2010 Permalink | Reply

      They are idiots.

      Farmers don’t want dust either–they don’t want their topsoil blowing away.

      You know, like the Dust Bowl Days of the Great Depression.

      They work to preserve their soil every day. What does the EPA know about this anyway.

    • Jill 8:52 AM on 08/04/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Tilling the soil is also discouraged, because there’s deadly carbon in there! So Monsanto sells herbicide-resistant seeds – “Roundup ready” – that will sprout and mature no matter how much herbicide is poured on them. (I’m not into organics but this could push me over the edge.) And this is supposed to make the environment cleaner somehow? It’s madness.

      • jeff 7:30 PM on 03/15/2011 Permalink | Reply

        i am a farmer, “tilling” of the ground is a nessesay part of growing crops for food. without doing so the seed bed would be very poor especailly in heavy soils. As for roundup ready crops, they are only resitant to round up, wich is much much safer than the cocktail of chemicals we used before, you can drink a glass of round up and be perfectly fine, trust me.people need to learn the facts before they bash round up it is extremly safe

    • Quite Rightly 10:42 PM on 08/04/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Hungry people are easily led.

    • Jerry Cope 9:15 PM on 08/20/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Yes, hungry people ARE easily led. The Demorrhoids and the EPA need to be stopped by normal, sane people. The upcoming election may be our last chance. I would like to hear from a greenie weenie who agrees with this insanity.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc