“CONGRESS passes these laws not the EPA. The American people WANTED the EPA and it is probably the most popular government agency.”
You write like an eco-fascist moonbat.
Tell everyone about the EPA’s migratory molecule rule and how the EPA’s fascists tried to apply it.
When did Congress pass the migratory molecule rule?
Who sponsored the legislation?
How is the rule applied to tile drainage ditches? And at what distance is it applicable to navigable waters? And who in Congress determined that?
How does the migratory molecule rule fair when it butts up against SWANCC v. US Army?
Congress sets up the laws and allows the agencies to develop the means of implementing those laws. That is the FACT you seem to want to ignore.
If the agency subsequently exceeds its authority or Congressional wishes Congress can easily rule it in. The fact that it does not seems to indicate that Congress supports the EPA. And there is no real opposition to most of its actions in the people at large either. Only a fool would conclude otherwise. Do you think 40 years of propagandizing has had no effect of how people think, especially younger people, about the environment and man’s role within it?
Insulting those who tell you the truth won’t help you get to the bottom of things either. But I am sure vomiting out inflammatory (and completely useless) rhetoric is more to your liking.
Congress doesn't pass "rules"...they pass laws that are implemented via rules.
In the case of the "Migratory Molecule Rule," it's the Clean Water Act. Without the CWA, there could be no "Migratory Molecule Rule." (Note that I'm interpreting your term "Migratory Molecule Rule" broadly.)
Who sponsored the legislation?
Edmund Muskie, I believe, was the primary sponsor...but you should be able to look up all the sponsors.
How is the rule applied to tile drainage ditches? And at what distance is it applicable to navigable waters? And who in Congress determined that?
Soon after the Clean Water Act was passed, it was determined in federal court that Congress intended it to apply to more than strictly navigable waters. IIRC, in one of the first portions of the law, it notes that the intent is to protect navigable waters--and that, of course, requires control of the inputs to navigable waters. There have been dozens of court cases confirming the CWA jurisdiction over these "Migratory Molecule" inputs. To get specific answers on how the rule (which was shot down in its original sense by a complex SCOTUS decision, but supported in a narrower sense) is applied in a modified way, you should contact an environmental attorney--I'm not qualified to answer those questions, despite having a couple of binders of MDEQ documents in my back seat at the moment. :-) But as stated above, Congress determined, and the SCOTUS agreed, that many inputs are regulated under the CWA.
And the important point: Congress has not amended the CWA to avoid including "significant nexus" or "permanent flow" inputs. Congress has left intact the interpretations of dozens of court cases, including the decision of the SCOTUS.
How does the migratory molecule rule fair when it butts up against SWANCC v. US Army?
The "Migratory Moleule Rule" came in response to SWANCC v. USACOE, so there's not an issue of "butting up against" it. See a case known as Rapanos v. United States (dealing with a case in your state) for more relevant and recent info.
As you highlight, the EPA and COE rules are subject to court decisions and may be overturned by Congressional amendments. I believe this is exactly what arrogantsob is pointing out: the laws are passed by Congress, and the agencies are Executive branch--i.e., implementing the laws, and subject to checks and balances of the Legislative and and Judicial branches.
So Congress is the appropriate root-cause target for reform.* Without the Clean Water Act being written the way it is, allowing these EPA/COE rules, the rules couldn't exist.
*unless we act like little anti-American lefties and push for ignoring the law.