[The_Republic_Of_Maine]

The EPA's proposed Clean Water Act rule is rife with errors, lacks transparency and would greatly expand strict federal control over land that was previously not regulated by the federal government, according to a report by economist and University of California-Berkley faculty member David Sunding, Ph.D. The proposed EPA rule represents an expansion of the “Waters of the United States” to include waters such as small, isolated wetlands, ephemeral drains and many ditches. In the proposed rule’s economic analysis, the EPA systematically underestimated the impact on affected communities and businesses, according to the report.

Let's start with a simple but oft times ignored fact. The EPA is unconstitutional!

[OneWingedShark]

Let's start with a simple but oft times ignored fact. The EPA is unconstitutional!

The EPA being disbanded for unconstitutionality stands about the same chance as stopping the War on Drugs or abolishing the ATF or the NSA and its domestic espionage.
And all for the same reason: those in power are disinclined to relinquish it.

[Gen.Blather]

“The EPA is unconstitutional! “

I agree. However, you probably won’t see an effort to get rid of it on those grounds. So much of what has happened since the introduction of the Federal Reserve has been unconstitutional that if you took that as the criteria to eliminate government organization practically everything done in twentieth century wound be undone. While you might get a majority to say this or that is unconstitutional it opens up the entirety of the mess to a level of scrutiny that would bring every special interest in the world into play. Congress Critters would quickly trade votes to protect their sacred cows so that, in the end, not one would be slaughtered.

It’s probably best to attack the EPA for overstepping their bounds and becoming, in effect a fourth branch of government.