In The News
Eye on the EPA: Unearned Bonuses, Paychecks for Nothing, and Credit Card Abuse
Your Taxpayer Dollars at Work... Or Not
Friday May 30, 2014
Fraud at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is nothing new. John C. Beale, a former high-ranking official at the EPA and fake CIA agent, was convicted for stealing nearly $1 million from American taxpayers. Beale received hundreds of thousands in unearned bonuses and would skip entire days, even weeks and months from the office, while still receiving a full paycheck. While all this is outrageous, it is clear that his crimes were just the tip of the iceberg. EPA’s lax internal controls and substandard management allow Agency employees to regularly take advantage of the system and benefit themselves at taxpayer expense. Unfortunately, it is difficult to quantify at this stage the true amount of waste of taxpayer dollars, meaning more oversight is needed.
ICYMI: Hollywood Anti-Fracking Environmentalists Happy to Team with Fake Middle Eastern Oil
Friday May 23, 2014
This week, an investigative video was released showing Hollywood film producers eager to accept Middle Eastern money to produce an anti-fracking video. The actor, portraying a wealthy Middle Eastern investor, is clear that he wants to ban hydraulic fracturing in America because it hurts the Middle Eastern oil industry, and he wants to pay the Hollywood producers to make the movie. The producers not only agree to make the movie, but they have no qualms with hiding his financial involvement behind a wall of far-left environmental activists and non-governmental organizations. The producers make it clear - this is not their first time.
How the Obama Administration’s Clean Water Act Abuse Impacts Local Governments
While concern over the size and scope of our federal government grows, so does the government’s ambition to welcome itself into your backyard
Thursday May 22, 2014
Washington, DC
The Obama Administration is currently attempting to expand the federal government’s power under the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPW Republicans are concerned with the way this Administration’s water-related policies threaten our nation’s economy, families, farmers, and small business owners. Click here to read more.If finalized, the proposed “waters of the United States” rule will result in a significant expansion of federal authority under the CWA. As the number of waters considered jurisdictional under the CWA increases, so do the impacts on our cities and counties. The term “navigable waters” appears more than 70 times through the CWA, and the proposed rule would redefine navigable waters every time it appears. Each time a water body is deemed to be a “waters of the United States,” costly administrative and regulatory actions are imposed, and it is our local governments, and in turn, fellow citizens, who will bear a significant portion of the burden. Additionally, if finalized, the proposed rule would also subject our local governments to even more lawsuits from radical environmentalists. Here are a few concerns local governments should be aware of:
Vitter Summary Statement for Nuclear Reactor Decommissioning Hearing
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works “Nuclear Reactor Decommissioning: Stakeholder Views”
Wednesday May 14, 2014
Washington, DC
The regulations enforcing security and safety standards during the nuclear reactor decommissioning process are very important to the people who live around and work in these facilities, a factor we must consider as more plants are forced to shut down due to an erratic regulatory environment.This is why today’s hearing is crucial. Before changes are made to the nuclear decommissioning process, we must hear from those directly impacted to ensure a safe and viable way to move forward.
Vitter Summary Statement for Water Subcommittee Hearing on Stormwater Runoff
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife “Solving the Problem of Polluted Transportation Infrastructure Stormwater Runoff”
Tuesday May 13, 2014
Washington, DC
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling today’s hearing. Thank you as well to our distinguished witnesses for providing testimony this afternoon.It is no secret that the current Administration sees Congress as an obstacle to its hostile regulatory agenda, and that President Obama and his Environmental Protection Agency are willing to ignore multiple agency guidelines and federally mandated transparency laws in order to appease the environmental left. It was only last week that White House counselor John Podesta indicated that there is a “zero percent” chance that President Obama will refrain from imposing misguided climate regulations, as soon as this year--even if that means further undermining our energy security and economic recovery, and even if that means higher energy prices and more unemployment for the American people.
Unfortunately, the Administration’s policy of “legislation by regulation” is pervasive, and it has reached the subject of today’s hearing: stormwater runoff. There is no question that, under the Clean Water Act, Congress provided EPA with the authority to address and mitigate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters. However, the EPA has been testing the limits of this authority recently in an ongoing effort to regulate water bodies that were clearly left to the states and private landowners to manage. Some of the more egregious examples have been highlighted by EPW Republicans.
EPA’s Clean Water Act Policies: Fact vs. Fiction
While concern over the size and scope of our federal government grows, so does the government’s ambition to welcome itself into your backyard
Wednesday May 7, 2014
The Obama Administration is currently attempting to expand the federal government’s power under the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPW Republicans have been concerned with the way this Administration’s water-related policies threaten our nation’s economy, families, farmers, and small business owners. Click here to read more.
On a number of occasions, EPA’s Administrator Gina McCarthy has publicly made disingenuous statements regarding the Agency’s CWA policies, particularly on March 25, 2014 when they released the “waters of the United States” rule.
Administrator McCarthy said: “Our proposed rule will not add to or expand the scope of waters historically protected under the Clean Water Act.” Click here.
Fact check: This assertion is false as the Agencies admit that they “expect that the outcome of the proposed rule will be an approximate 3 percent increase in assertion of jurisdiction,” showing that Ms. McCarthy is not being forthright when discussing the proposed rule and its potential impacts. Moreover, the methodology used to determine jurisdiction impacts is highly questionable, suggesting the Agencies are unwilling to acknowledge the full impact of their proposal. By adding and expanding numerous definitions in the proposed rule, the Agencies are ensuring that virtually all waters, regardless of how remote or isolated they may be, will be swept under the control of the federal government.
This expansion will have a significant impact on numerous regulated activities, such as home building, mining, road construction, commercial property development, water infrastructure projects, and even farming. It is a prime example of government overreach that puts the Administration’s ideals ahead of the rights of property owners.
McCarthy said: “Water is vital to America’s farmers & ranchers. Our proposed rule keeps existing Clean Water Act exemptions for agriculture.” (see Gina McCarthy’s Twitter feed, @GinaEPA 3/25 at 11:45 am)
Fact check: The proposed rule expands the Agencies’ control over land management on farms and ranches. The agricultural exemptions contained in the proposed rule are essentially exemptions in name only. Under the proposed rule there are a number of common farm activities that may trigger CWA liability and require a federal permit. These include ordinary fieldwork, fence construction, pruning trees and shrubs, and controlling weeds, insects, and diseases.
It is also important to note that the Administration refuses to honor existing agricultural exemptions under the Clean Water Act. In 2012, EPA threatened a West Virginia poultry farmer with civil penalties of up to $37,500 per day for failing to obtain a CWA permit. However, last year a federal court rejected EPA’s threats because the agency was clearly ignoring the CWA’s agricultural stormwater exemption. More recently, another federal court dismissed EPA’s prosecution of a Wyoming farmer, who spent $30,000 to clean-up an irrigation ditch and improve local water quality, because the Agency had failed to recognize the CWA’s exemption for normal farming and ranching activities.
McCarthy said: The new proposed rule “adds certainty for business…” (see @GinaEPA 3/25 at 10:18 am)
Fact check: The EPA’s current CWA policy creates regulatory uncertainty. EPA has attempted to use the CWA to kill a business project before a company’s planning documents have been submitted to permitting authorities, and the Agency retroactively terminated a company’s CWA permit four years after it was obtained, despite the company’s compliance with the permits terms. By subjecting more waters to federal jurisdiction, the proposed rule--combined with the Agency’s eagerness to veto CWA permits whenever it pleases--will add to the uncertainty for businesses.
McCarthy said: “Red tape is not good for business. Our new rule streamlines the process of determining what streams and wetlands are protected.” (see @GinaEPA 3/25 at 12:33 PM)
Fact check: The CWA permitting system can be incredibly slow and costly. This proposed rule would only exacerbate the problem by significantly expanding the number of permits that will be required across the country. This will result in delayed development and longer permitting timelines for the business community.
The Administration is using the logic that if more people are aware that they have to obtain a CWA Section 404 “dredge and fill” permit—which takes an individual on average more than two years and more than $270,000 to obtain—red tape will somehow be reduced. That does not make sense.
McCarthy said: “Our businesses and communities rely on abundant, clean water. Today’s rule clarifies what’s protected under the Clean Water Act.” (see @GinaEPA 3/25 at 11:07 AM)
Fact check: Rather than provide clarity to property owners, the proposed rule will only result in more confusion and frustration. Federal bureaucrats will be able to exploit the rule’s broad regulatory definitions in order to subject homeowners, small businesses, and municipalities to costly permitting requirements and job-killing litigation. The proposal would allow the Agencies to determine on a case-by-case basis whether local waters, such as isolated ponds and wetlands, are subject to federal jurisdiction, rendering the agency’s “clarification” claim meaningless and dubious.
On a number of occasions, EPA’s Administrator Gina McCarthy has publicly made disingenuous statements regarding the Agency’s CWA policies, particularly on March 25, 2014 when they released the “waters of the United States” rule.
Administrator McCarthy said: “Our proposed rule will not add to or expand the scope of waters historically protected under the Clean Water Act.” Click here.
Fact check: This assertion is false as the Agencies admit that they “expect that the outcome of the proposed rule will be an approximate 3 percent increase in assertion of jurisdiction,” showing that Ms. McCarthy is not being forthright when discussing the proposed rule and its potential impacts. Moreover, the methodology used to determine jurisdiction impacts is highly questionable, suggesting the Agencies are unwilling to acknowledge the full impact of their proposal. By adding and expanding numerous definitions in the proposed rule, the Agencies are ensuring that virtually all waters, regardless of how remote or isolated they may be, will be swept under the control of the federal government.
This expansion will have a significant impact on numerous regulated activities, such as home building, mining, road construction, commercial property development, water infrastructure projects, and even farming. It is a prime example of government overreach that puts the Administration’s ideals ahead of the rights of property owners.
McCarthy said: “Water is vital to America’s farmers & ranchers. Our proposed rule keeps existing Clean Water Act exemptions for agriculture.” (see Gina McCarthy’s Twitter feed, @GinaEPA 3/25 at 11:45 am)
Fact check: The proposed rule expands the Agencies’ control over land management on farms and ranches. The agricultural exemptions contained in the proposed rule are essentially exemptions in name only. Under the proposed rule there are a number of common farm activities that may trigger CWA liability and require a federal permit. These include ordinary fieldwork, fence construction, pruning trees and shrubs, and controlling weeds, insects, and diseases.
It is also important to note that the Administration refuses to honor existing agricultural exemptions under the Clean Water Act. In 2012, EPA threatened a West Virginia poultry farmer with civil penalties of up to $37,500 per day for failing to obtain a CWA permit. However, last year a federal court rejected EPA’s threats because the agency was clearly ignoring the CWA’s agricultural stormwater exemption. More recently, another federal court dismissed EPA’s prosecution of a Wyoming farmer, who spent $30,000 to clean-up an irrigation ditch and improve local water quality, because the Agency had failed to recognize the CWA’s exemption for normal farming and ranching activities.
McCarthy said: The new proposed rule “adds certainty for business…” (see @GinaEPA 3/25 at 10:18 am)
Fact check: The EPA’s current CWA policy creates regulatory uncertainty. EPA has attempted to use the CWA to kill a business project before a company’s planning documents have been submitted to permitting authorities, and the Agency retroactively terminated a company’s CWA permit four years after it was obtained, despite the company’s compliance with the permits terms. By subjecting more waters to federal jurisdiction, the proposed rule--combined with the Agency’s eagerness to veto CWA permits whenever it pleases--will add to the uncertainty for businesses.
McCarthy said: “Red tape is not good for business. Our new rule streamlines the process of determining what streams and wetlands are protected.” (see @GinaEPA 3/25 at 12:33 PM)
Fact check: The CWA permitting system can be incredibly slow and costly. This proposed rule would only exacerbate the problem by significantly expanding the number of permits that will be required across the country. This will result in delayed development and longer permitting timelines for the business community.
The Administration is using the logic that if more people are aware that they have to obtain a CWA Section 404 “dredge and fill” permit—which takes an individual on average more than two years and more than $270,000 to obtain—red tape will somehow be reduced. That does not make sense.
McCarthy said: “Our businesses and communities rely on abundant, clean water. Today’s rule clarifies what’s protected under the Clean Water Act.” (see @GinaEPA 3/25 at 11:07 AM)
Fact check: Rather than provide clarity to property owners, the proposed rule will only result in more confusion and frustration. Federal bureaucrats will be able to exploit the rule’s broad regulatory definitions in order to subject homeowners, small businesses, and municipalities to costly permitting requirements and job-killing litigation. The proposal would allow the Agencies to determine on a case-by-case basis whether local waters, such as isolated ponds and wetlands, are subject to federal jurisdiction, rendering the agency’s “clarification” claim meaningless and dubious.
