EPA’s Views On Energy, Water & Crucifixion

Have you ever struggled to try to explain something about your business to a friend who has never fought to make a payroll, knowing the only check that would go unwritten was his/her own? While your friend may truly want to understand your point of view, your life experiences are so different that words seem unable to bridge the chasm.

That’s the situation we often find ourselves in when talking with folks outside our industry about how legislation and regulations can effect our members. They simply can’t or refuse to comprehend the hardships “well-intended” institutions like NLRB, EEOC, OSHA and EPA can have on small business.

You hope for the day when someone will offer the right words or example that will open their eyes. It seems that in the last few weeks the perfect example we have all been looking for may have been found.

To our surprise it did not come from our friends at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers or even the bold voices at the National Federation of Independent Business; this wonderful example came right out of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In a recently discovered video-recording of a speech given two years ago, the EPA’s own regional administrator Al Armendariz, explained the Agency’s “philosophy” when it came to enforcement. He explained it so clearly even friends who have never been in business can now understand.

In his speech, Armendariz said his philosophy of enforcement is to make a big example of lawbreakers. “It was kinda like how the Romans used to conquer those villages in the Mediterranean… They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw, and they’d crucify them. And you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

“You make examples out of people… Hit them as hard as you can and make examples out of them. There’s a deterrent factor. Companies that are smart see that, they don’t want to play that. And they decide at that point that it’s time to clean up.”

Armendariz later apologized for his “poor choice of words” and recently resigned his position. The problem wasn’t his words, it was that he wasn’t joking.

Problems with the EPA are not limited to the energy industry. This week, legislation was introduced in the U.S. House to halt EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers’ attempts to illegally expand federal power under the Clean Water Act and extend the government’s regulatory reach to every ditch, puddle and pond in the country.

“The new authorities granted in this guidance would allow the EPA and the Corps of Engineers the authority to regulate almost any body of water in the U.S.,” said Ag Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK). “That means farm ponds, stock tanks, and seasonal runoff ditches could conceivably be included under new regulations. The economic impact on farmers, ranchers, and rural communities would be devastating. This legislation allows us to restore and protect our natural resources by working together and balancing state and federal authority.”

“I believe in protecting our waterways, and that the Clean Water Act is the law of the land,” said Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-MN). “This policy is too important to be done administratively and should go through a formal process, that’s why I am joining my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and supporting this bill. I was opposed to this Clean Water Act expansion when the Bush Administration tried it and now when the current Administration is trying it. We should not be regulating every puddle, pond and ditch. We need to provide certainty in our permitting process so agriculture and businesses can predict and plan for the future.”

This agency and others continue to look for enemies to “make an example” of instead of working with industry to balance environmental protection with energy development. Such an attitude doesn’t help tap into America’s energy resources, hurts manufacturers and farmers and it doesn’t create jobs.