Tag Archives: EPA

If You Build It, the EPA May Come

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

 The EPA never a knew a draconian regulation it didn’t like.

**********************

 

Via Junk Science

A Wyoming couple face $75,000 fine for building a stock pond, the EPA says they built a dam and can be fined for doing so without jumping through regulatory hoops.The Fox News article is about a couple discovering how heavy-handed the EPA can be. The EPA does not recognize the fact that they followed state law. The EPA regulates waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act.    The regulatory definition covers almost anything, including intermittent streams.

I’m not surprised they had problems, the regulators tend to stretch definitions well past any reasonable limits.  For example, rules for oil storage require a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure plan if there is a potential discharge to navigable waters.  It’s easier to write and maintain a plan for a 12,000 gallon tank, in a dike, whose spill would have to travel 1.5 miles over grass to a stream that is navigable only by inner tube than fight the regulators over the navigable water definition. (Besides, having a spill plan is not a bad idea.)

State regulations can be no better.  In the late 1990′s a ditch on private property connecting to the intra-county drain system that discharged to a river that had no trout became a designated Michigan trout stream, subject to all the protections trout streams have.  Since the ditch was dug to drain from a beef slaughter house operation, it is highly doubtful that it was ever stocked with brown trout.

The Corrupt Cesspool of the EPA, Earth Justice, the Sierra Club and Their Fake Lawsuits

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

Sara Noble reports in The Independent Sentinel just how much the EPA and environmental extremist groups are in bed with each other, all at the taxpayers’ expense, of course.

EPA Bans Most Wood Burning Stoves In a Corrupt Scheme, Fireplaces Next

epa1

By Sara Noble

 As of January 3rd, the EPA banned about 80% of the wood-burning stoves and fireplace inserts in the United States. Stoves which are used to heat 12% of the homes in America and are especially needed in outlying rural areas. Fireplaces are also being looked at.

The EPA is attempting to reduce particle pollution with new rules. Instead of limiting fine airborne particulate emissions to 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) of air, the change will impose a maximum 12 μg/m3 limit. That is equivalent to a person smoking 3 to 4 cigarettes in a small confined space.

The draconian EPA regulations will be spread out, one will take place in March and the next in five to eight years. Stoves currently in use will not be affected but obviously, getting them repaired will become more and more difficult.

They haven’t yet gone after outdoor appliances or home heating appliances, but can they be far behind? Will people be able to heat their homes in a future controlled by extreme environmentalists?

Even fireplaces are being looked at though not included yet. They are part of the future research.

Forced air furnaces will also face drastic cuts and are headed for extinction over the next five years unless they meet near-impossible limits to their emissions.

The ruling will “require efficiency and carbon monoxide testing and reporting, which will provide consumers additional information to help them select the best wood heater for their homes,” which will cost sellers and home owners time and money as they face an unbending bureaucracy overseeing these simple devices.

Some local governments in some states have gone further and banned stoves as fireplaces, placing fines on users. Montréal, Canada has banned them altogether. It gets pretty cold there but they don’t care.

The Attorneys General in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont, strongholds for far-left Democrats, have filed suit against the EPA demanding wood-burning water heaters and outdoor wood boilers also be included. The extreme environmental group EarthJustice also filed suit.

Senators David Vitter (R-LA)  and James Inhofe (R-Okla.), along with Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.), Chairman of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care, and Entitlements, et al have been investigating and will continue to hold the administration accountable where possible.

Regulations like these are being forced through with “fake” lawsuits.

The corrupt scheme being used is known as “sue and settle”.  It allows the EPA more freedom in advancing harsh regulations on the public. The scheme works like this according to Senator Vitter of Louisiana:

A far-left environmental group sues a federal department or agency, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), claiming that the government is not satisfying its regulatory obligations. Then, after the group and the EPA plan and discuss the matter – without the involvement of any others, including affected business, landowners, and state and local governments – they draft a settlement agreement committing the agency to regulate a certain sector of the economy or type of private property. All that’s left is to get the presiding judge to bless their friendly agreement.

There’s even a bonus prize in this scheme. Because such a settlement is counted as a “win” for the environmental group plaintiff, that suing group is awarded all of its costs and attorney’s fees, creating a revolving fund for its continuing activity, courtesy of our wallets.

Presto: the left, including the Obama Administration, advances its aggressive environmental agenda. No need for messy Congressional hearings or opposing arguments.

Tens of millions have been spent on these corrupt “lawsuits” but it is impossible to get a handle on it at the EPA because they don’t keep track of their attorney’s time on a case-by-case basis. How CONVENIENT!

During the first term of the Obama Administration, EPA entered into more than 60 “sue and settle” agreements with environmental allies, including 34 lawsuits by Sierra Club, 20 by WildEarth Guardians and nine from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). These agreements, and thus environmental activists, have effectively dictated EPA policy.

The EPA is one more agency politicized by the Obama Administration.

Last year Forbes reported The Chamber of Commerce concluded that Sue and Settle rulemaking is responsible for many of EPA’s “most controversial, economically significant regulations that have plagued the business community for the past few years,” including regulations on power plants, refineries, mining operations, cement plants, chemical manufacturers, and a host of other industries.

One of the most successful and most egregious are the “regional haze requirements under the Clean Air Act.” This Act is being used to force through unreasonable restrictions that are costing states hundreds of millions of dollars.

For example, in Montana, EPA’s proposed Regional Haze controls are nearly 250% more expensive than what that agency’s standing rules presume to be “cost-effective. In 2011, according to Forbes, the EPA disregarded New Mexico’s Regional Haze plan, instead imposing a federal plan that requires nearly $840 million more in capital costs…potentially raising average annual household utility bills by $120.

Louisiana Senator David Vitter (R-LA), the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is investigating, “using all available tools to bring to light this often abused path to regulatory influence”.

It’s almost impossible to get the EPA to comply with FOIA requests which is the first step in the process.

These sue and settle suits have had serious repercussions to land owners hoping to develop and grow on their property, repercussions which will only get worse.

The studies on which these decisions are made are not even responsibly peer-reviewed. The EPA’s regulations have eliminated the possibility of building new coal refineries and upcoming rules will make it impossible for older facilities to survive. Coal affects 40% of US households. The furnaces and wood-burning stoves will affect another 12%. Fireplaces will affect an even greater number.

The EPA’s regulatory determinations lack accountability and transparency which enables them to accomplish through a renegade pattern of actions what they cannot achieve through democratic legislative processes. Will people finally lash out or just settle in to the seizure of all our energy sources except the impractical and costly ones they allow?

Representative Tammie Wilson speaking to the Associated Press, the Times reported: “Everyone wants clean air. We just want to make sure that we can also heat our homes.” Wilson continued: “Rather than fret over the EPA’s computer–model–based warning about the dangers of inhaling soot from wood smoke, residents have more pressing concerns on their minds as the immediate risk of freezing when the mercury plunges.”

I guess the environmental leftists expect global warming to take care of our heating needs.

The EPA is asking for input on wood-burning stoves using the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734 and comments can be sent in any of the following ways:

  1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
  2. E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
  3. Fax: Fax your comments to: (202) 566-9744.
  4. Mail: Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460.
  5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. To make special arrangements or for questions, call (202) 566-1742.

**Three sentences were corrected for grammatical errors after publication.

EPA Changes Wyoming’s Borders – Gives 1 Million Acres to Indian Tribes

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

Via The Daily Caller

Have you heard the story of the residents of Riverton, Wyo.? One day they were Wyomingans, the next they were members of the Wind River tribes — after the Environmental Protection Agency declared the town part of the Wind River Indian Reservation, undoing a 1905 law passed by Congress and angering state officials.

 

The surprise decision was made by officials of the EPA, the Department of Interior, and Department of Justice early last month, and has invoked the ire of Gov. Matt Mead, who has vowed not to honor the agency’s decision and is preparing to fight in court.

“My deep concern is about an administrative agency of the federal government altering a state’s boundary and going against over 100 years of history and law,” Mead said in a statement. “This should be a concern to all citizens because, if the EPA can unilaterally take land away from a state, where will it stop?”

Continue reading

SMOKING GUN: New Documents Reveal Obama’s Anti-Capitalist Agenda

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

Brought to you by the Environmental Protection Agency through the instituting of the sustainability and green economics hoaxes.

*********************

 

Via Institute for Energy Research

WASHINGTON — The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released today the deposition transcript of former Senior EPA official John Beale. Beale was sentenced to prison last month for defrauding the federal government of nearly $900,000 while posing as a secret agent for the CIA.

On page 21 of the deposition, Beale revealed the ultimate goal of the EPA and the Obama administration to “modify the DNA of the capitalist system.” The deposition reads:

“There were several phases of this project as we had outlined it. There’s an enormous body of literature on the subject. Sometimes it’s referred to sustainability literature, sometimes it’s referred to green economics. And so phase 1 of the project was for me to become very familiar and transversant with that literature. Phase 2 would have been out and interviewing academic experts, business experts, people in other countries that are doing things.

“And then phase 3 would have been coming up with specific proposals that could be – could have been proposed either legislatively or things which could have been done administratively to kind of modify the DNA of the capitalist system…”

IER Senior Vice President Dan Kish released the following statement in response to Beale’s sworn deposition:

“This is the smoking gun. For years, we have been saying the real agenda behind this administration’s energy and environmental policies is  just what President Obama has said it is: to fundamentally transform America.

“In his testimony under oath, Beale, perhaps unwittingly, has laid bare the administration’s end goal. The President’s policies are not about carbon, they are not about coal, they are not even about energy and the environment. They are about fundamentally altering the DNA of the capitalist system. These policies are not about energy, but power.

“Beale was ordered by EPA administrator to head the agency’s climate change efforts. Today’s publicly released deposition means that McCarthy has many more questions to answer about her bad judgement regarding Beale and the true nature of the administration’s climate action plan.”

To read the full deposition, click here.

 

What You Should Know About the EPA’s Threat to Private Property Rights, State Sovereignty and Economic Growth

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

As usual, the Obama administration is hoping you will be looking at its left hand (in this case, Obamacare)  while its right hand is taking away more of our rights, that being our property rights.

The following two articles talk about what the EPA is doing this time with its draconian regulations on personal property rights with the massive expansion of the Clean Water Act.

*******************

 

Via The Heartland Institute

Thorner: EPA Power grab goes unnoticed while Obamacare burns

Things continue to happen under the radar while this nation and its people are immersed in headlines about Obamacare and the tussle in Congress over the delays fostered by the disastrous October 1st roll out of the Obamacare Government Exchange. But juggling lots of balls in the air at any one time is part and parcel of the Obama administration, so confusion reigns and measures that greatly affect this nation and its people get lost in the tumult and confusion of other events. Check out #8 of Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals used by Barack Obama’s as his guide when a community organizer in Chicago.

Such is the under-the-radar situation as the Obama administration is moving stealthily toward unprecedented control over private property under a massive expansion of its Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Act authority.

Continue reading

 

 Now, on to the next article.

 

Via PJ Media

EPA Stealthily Propels Toward ‘Massive Power Grab of Private Property Across the U.S.’

WASHINGTON — While the country is immersed in Obamacare headlines and a congressional tussle over delays and mandates, the Obama administration is stealthily moving toward unprecedented control over private property under a massive expansion of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Act authority.

The proposed rule, obtained by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee in advance of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s testimony at a Thursday oversight hearing, widely broadens the definition of waterways over which the federal government has jurisdiction to as little as a water ditch in a backyard.

Continue reading

Charlatans Rule at the EPA

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

 The harbinger of the dystopian future of science welcomed at the EPA.

**************

 

 

Via Junk Science

Francesca Grifo PhD, doyen of scientific integrity at the Union of Concerned Scientists, has been appointed in charge of scientific integrity at EPA, a lateral move, junk science in the private enviro sector to the same role in government.

With this appointment the EPA accomplishes two things, cover for continued junk science and a thumb in the eye of any serious critic of EPA scientific misconduct.

Good grief, the Union of Concerned Scientists (such a benign sounding name) is a gang of cargo cult science phonies who are advocates,  in the service of a statist/socialist/environmentalist/nanny/Luddite political agenda.  They habitually violate scientific rules and traditions for leftist causes.

Dr. Grifo is not the one to assure scientific integrity at the EPA when she comes proudly from the advocate, enviro activist Union.

If you have any doubts, look at the Union’s web site and their history.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists?o=2800&eiramp;qsrc=999

The EPA will, no doubt, parade Dr. Grifo around for the press and political pundits as proof of their commitment to scientific reliability.  However we who criticize the EPA’s science record know that Dr. Grifo exemplifies how intellectual passion motivated by political agendas produces fallacious thinking, tunnel vision, consensus science bullying, and confirmation bias.  Dr. Grifo comes from the dark side of science–science used for political purposes.  She is a harbinger of a dystopian future of science in the service of the state.   The EPA just put their thumb in the eye of those who urge them to clean up their scientific research programs.

There is little hope that Dr. Grifo will, for example, initiate proper inquiries on transparency and on the scandal of human exposure experiments.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/D6741453E168FD4385257C2E00650858

 

EPA Blocking Repair/installation of Fire Hydrants

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

The latest EPA casualty

*********

 

Via Junk Science

In an unbelievable bit of hysteria about lead pollution, the EPA has just blocked pretty much all installations/repairs of fire hydrants? Why? Because they have a small amount of lead in their composition.

Now this would be almost, almost, just barely, defensible if there was real concern of significant amounts of lead going into the primary water mains but that’s not the issue.

They’re worried that… someone might turn on the hydrant and drink from it. Ok, in a worst case scenario there might be, might be, an annoying amount (to the EPA) of lead in the water that’s been sitting in the hydrant, namely the first couple of gallons. But if anyone’s drinking from a hydrant it’s been running for hours and thousands of gallons have washed through it.

So the fire departments have to sit back and seal up any broken units, and have to waste precious minutes and resources tapping into the next one down the block. People’s lives and properties at stake, for no good reason whatsoever.

More info here.

EPA Violates Private Property Rights All in the Name of Wetlands

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

 Beware of EPA’s new definition of the word “wetlands.” It can cause you to be fined, the cessation of using your property and yet still be taxed on that property.  Is this still the United States of America?

***************

 

 

Via American Thinker

The  EPA has defined “wetlands” so  broadly that some farmers who have been socked with fines for supposedly  damaging or disturbing their own property were astonished to discover that they  were violating any laws. Now the EPA wants to expand their power to violate  private property rights in the name of environmental  protection.

The  erosion of property rights has been one of the most damaging developments in the  era of big government. It is almost universally recognized that strong  protections for property owners is one of the major guarantors of our liberties.  The push by government to undermine those rights and liberties did not start  with the Obama administration, and they probably won’t end with it. But the  expense of defending one’s rights against the government means that few can  afford the protracted court battles that ensue when the  government’s  appetite for control gets out of hand.

Read article here.

Why is EPA Avoiding the People Most Affected by Coal Regulations?

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

 The answer to the above question is that the EPA just can’t handle the truth about coal regulations, so they just ignore it.

***********************

Via Institute for Energy Research

EPA has stated its intention to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants—particularly from coal-fired power plants. Regulatory agencies are required to take public comment on their regulations and one way EPA is doing this is by having 11public listening sessions around the country. But EPA is intentionally avoiding the parts of the country where coal is most-produced and most-used.  Those who know the most about coal are being ignored.

EPA is accepting input through the Contact Us page or at carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov until November 8, 2013. Please take a few minutes to tell EPA that their rules are harmful, will drive up energy costs in the United States, will make America less economically competitive, and will not result in temperature reductions that actually matter, even by EPA’s own studies.

Here’s where EPA is holding their listening sessions on the regulations EPA is designing to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants:

Screen Shot 2013-10-11 at 11.47.53 AM

With these regulations EPA essentially bans existing power plants (see note below) and will destroy thousands of coal mining jobs in the United States, but EPA is avoiding the areas of the country where coal is produced. Of the top 10 coal production states, EPA is only hosting listening sessions in three of these states—Pennsylvania, Texas, and Illinois.  They also have chosen major urban areas away from either plants or mines, or the people who work in them.

Screen Shot 2013-10-11 at 11.47.11 AM

This regulation will greatly impact states like Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Montana but EPA is not holding listening sessions in those states.

EPA is also not holding listening sessions in the states that use coal to make the most electricity. The following chart shows the states where EPA is holding listening sessions and the percentage of energy the state produces from coal, the percentage of electricity generation from coal, and the electricity price rank (the lower the rank, the lower the costs of electricity). As the chart shows, EPA has chosen states that are below average in coal production,[1] in coal electricity generation, and therefore have above average electricity prices.

Screen Shot 2013-10-11 at 11.48.37 AM

Here is one more chart showing the top ten states by the share of total electricity generation from coal. EPA is not going to a single one of these states. In other words, regulation on carbon dioxide emissions from coal fired power plants will impact these states the most and EPA is avoiding these states.

Screen Shot 2013-10-11 at 4.33.45 PM

If EPA is serious about hearing from the people most affected by regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, EPA should go to the states that would be the most affected—states that produce and consume the most coal. By avoiding those states, EPA is systematically sidestepping its responsibility to take comments from the American people.

While it’s true that EPA is accepting input through their Contact Us page or at carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov until November 8, 2013, that’s not the same as providing the opportunity to comment in person about these economic destructive and environmentally ineffectual regulations.

Must-see Video: EPA admits illegal purpose of coal plant rules; Facilitating international treaty talks not allowed by Clean Air Act

Posted by Dottie MacQueen

 

Via  Junk Science

This video ought to destroy upcoming EPA’s coal plant rules when challenged in federal court.

In this video, EPA chief Gina McCarthy admits:

  1. EPA regulation under the Clean Air Act will be futile; and
  2. The real purpose of EPA regulation is to show the international community that the U.S. is willing to take action.

Neither explanation satisfies the Clean Air Act.

Below is EPA’s legal explanation for regulating CO2 from power plants. As the rules will accomplish nothing, they cannot be said to “cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” There is no exception for “looking good” internationally.

Continue reading