Replies

after former President Richard Nixon proposed it as a way to address mounting pollution concerns across the country

That's wrong. Totally wrong.

Between 1948 and 1970 Congress passed, and Presidents signed, the following laws:

Air
1955: Air Pollution Control Act PL 84-159
1963: Clean Air Act PL 88-206
1965: Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act PL 89-272
1966: Clean Air Act Amendments PL 89-675
1967: Air Quality Act PL 90-148

Water
1948: Water Pollution Control Act PL 80-845
1965: Water Quality Act PL 89-234
1966: Clean Waters Restoration Act PL 89-753

Land
1964: Wilderness Act PL 88-577
1968: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act PL 90-542
1970: Wilderness Act PL 91-504

Endangered species
1946: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act PL 79-732
1966: Endangered Species Preservation Act PL 89-669
1969: Endangered Species Conservation Act PL 91-135

Hazardous waste
1965: Solid Waste Disposal Act PL 89-272
1970: Resource Recovery Act PL 91-512

All of these laws delegated Congress's lawmaking powers to the President and to the Executive Departments. Bu the time Nixon created the EPA by executive order, attempts to enforce these many laws were occurring in multiple departments, e.g., Justice, Commerce, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Health Education and Welfare, and bureaucracy was growing iike mad.

Nixon's rationale for an EPA was to consolidate and coordinate all these enforcement activities into a single place, to eliminate waste, duplication of effort, and conflict over the meaning of the laws.

Now, of course, EPA turned into a monster. But the fault (as usual) lies with Congress for passing vague laws and then conferring its SOLE legislative power to unelected officials, thereby getting the best of both worlds: Attack "bureaucrats" at election time, tell aggrieved constituents "there's nothing I can do about it" most of the time.

I was once very interested in abolishing the EPA. But the problem is that, once the EPA is abolished, all the laws it is charged with enforcing will still exist.

Unless the Clean Air Act, the Water Quality Act, and the two Endangered Species Acts are repealed, the problem of the EPA is going to continue to exist in one form or another.

Thanks for the excellent summary.

As I see it, a big (Yuge!) part of the problem with the EPA as we know it today is pretty much the same problem we have with most of the federal government:

MISSION CREEP.

If it started with the government ernestly trying to protect drinking water and ending acid rain, it ended with the EPA dictating the design of the toilets, faucets and heating stoves we can purchase, and destroying small landowners for diverting rainwater on their own property.

As with almost everything else the federal government does, a prudent amount of oversight and governance is never enough - they always push to build a bigger empire and gain more and more authority and power.

The guiding principle seems to be “If a little bit is just right, too much is even better.”

Congress has the oversight power to reign in power hungry bureaucracies but has been as guilty as the executive in allowing (even aiding) expansion and intrusion into the most minute corners of our daily lives.