The Pros And Cons Of Abolishing The EPA

In recent years, and especially in this election cycle, some politicians have started a movement to eradicate some agencies of the federal government, one of which is the Environmental Protection Agency. For some people this is hard to understand, and for others this makes perfect sense. That 's what this article is going to explore; both sides of the argument to abolish the EPA.

In order to understand this conflict, one must be well versed in the history of the EPA, and all the acts they have passed. The EPA was created by an executive order from President Nixon in 1970. In this time, “the EPA has endeavored to achieve systematic control and abatement of pollution, by administering a variety of research, monitoring, standard-setting, and

So why do some politicians want to completely shut down the EPA? Often, it has little to do with disdain for the environment, and more to do with state’s rights. The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution states “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (The). Most of the people want to abolish the EPA because they feel it is an agency of big government, and believe that the power of the EPA should be returned to the states. Take Bill Johnson for example. He unsuccessfully ran for office in Kentucky a few years ago and said this: “We need to get rid of existing legislation and stop funding the Environmental Protection Agency. In other words, get rid of it – get rid of the associated federal regulations and return those responsibilities to the states” (Moore). Many politicians, mostly conservative Republicans, firmly believe in this argument surrounding many federal agencies. The Constitution is very important to many members of American politics, and they will often take drastic measures to strictly enforce its

There are many instances of the EPA overstepping their abilities, and causing ordinary citizens undue harm. Take the story of Mr. and Mrs. Michael Sackett, of Priest Lake, Idaho. “The Sackett family sought to build a house on its half-acre of land, yet after construction broke ground, the EPA interfered, claiming the family violated the Clean Water Act by placing fill materials into “wetlands.” Their property was designated as a wetland, yet their neighbors have built houses on either side of their lot and their lot already has established sewage lines. Their lot does not harbor a lake, pond or stream, yet the EPA is requiring them to obtain a building permit that would cost more than the value of their land” (Paul). Thankfully, in the case of the Sacketts, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA, and let the Sacketts build their house (Frank). The EPA seems to randomly be stringent with its regulations, and often abuses the property rights of individual citizens. It is important to note that any truly effective environmental regulation will end the concept of individual property rights as we know it, and lead to many more cases like this. The EPA has attempted to institute a “migratory molecule” rule which would allow them to regulate every drop of water in America (Paul). This means they could theoretically regulate a puddle in your backyard because it could end up in Lake Norman at some point