Dan Liljenquist: Only Congress can rein in overly aggressive EPA

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 27, 2014 4:42 p.m.

    Open Minded Mormon,
    That's not the ONLY reason you couldn't be a Republican. I doubt they would take you.


    Speaking of "blind, empty headed hatred"... isn't that exactly what you displayed about your neighbor? You don't know why he said that one sentence... but you pile a ton of assumed baggage and judgements on him for saying it.


    If we could quit instantly judging people for what they say, or for stumbling into one of our political traps, and jump on them for acting like a stereotypical "Republican" or acting how somebody else expects a "Democrat" to act... we could possibly get past bumper-sticker rhetoric, and broad-brush judgements.. and get into some deep thinking, and serious discussing stuff.

    That would be so refreshing...

    So the guy doesn't like the EPA... so what!

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 27, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    Dan must have been attending my GOP caucus meeting.
    One Delegate nominee said only one thing, "If the EPA is FOR it, then I'm against it!" hrumpf!

    That sort of blind, empty headed hatred - absent of thinkin gor doing what is Right vs. Wrong...
    is WHY I can't be a Republican.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 27, 2014 9:50 a.m.

    I don't think the EPA is aggressive or out of hand now... but it could be. Same goes for FEMA, The Federal Reserve, and other agencies headed by people I have no ability to un-elect if needed.

    Just because the people in control now don't abuse it today doesn't mean it will never be abused. You never know what kind of people will be in control generations from now.

    Agencies of unelected people (like this one) that CAN have a big impact on the economy and my life, but who I can't vote out if I don't like what they are doing... make me nervous.

    Same goes with turning control of our economy and our lives over to an unelected group of world governance fans (Al Gore, head of the WMF, UN, etc). People who may not like the United States some day, I don't know their views, and I can't vote them out if they get out of control and abusive. People I can't put in or take out IF they go bad.

    It's just not the form of government I'm comfortable with.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    March 27, 2014 9:38 a.m.

    I hope, for the sake of North Carolina residents, that Dan doesn't feel that Duke Power is over-regulated. Coal ash tends to be unfriendly to the human body even if it's been washed by the water of the river Duke dumped it in.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    March 27, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    Ok... hold on Dan. Clearly you are leaving out critical facts from your illustration. I was the president of a club whose property had been designated to be on a flood plain - many years after the completion of the project. That designation prevented us from doing much if any improvements to the land or property. In our dealings with the EPA, yes it was frustrating, but it was hardly unreasonable.

    Couple of tale-tale indications about your story is that it was Army Corp of Engineers that was the one who responded. Normally, the EPA contracts with state agencies for enforcement. If the Corp was engaged, this indicates the land was already in a water shed. Second item is while the land may be dry most of the time, if it impedes water flow - alters its course - there are many reasons to concerned about the project... the least of which would be the poor home owners who would have cracking and shifting foundations.

    If this developer was building in a flood plain... he needed to be stopped.... for the protection of those future home owners - despite the EPA.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    March 27, 2014 8:19 a.m.

    Sorry, but I wish the EPA would be more assertive. There are so many environmental disasters around the country that get ignored, and they will have a long term effect on our health and quality of life. I remember when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire. Is that the kind of stuff we want? I know the EPA (which was established by Republicans) is the standard whipping boy for the GOP, but enough already. Maybe substantive, constructive arguments should be given as to why we should support your party would be more useful rather than your strawman arguments meant to inflame.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    March 27, 2014 6:55 a.m.

    If the writer whats to make a case against the work of the EPA it isn't very convincing to cite one sided, versions of an anonymous "frantic homebuilder" from St George.

    To demonstrate the need for environmental oversight, we could reference real cases like the Mid-Valley pipeline in Ohio, that recently leaked 20,000 gallons of oil into the Oak Glenn Nature Preserve, or EPA's ongoing concern with Salt Lake City's noxious air quality.

    The demonization of all things government plays well with the base, but guess what, we no longer have rivers catching on fire, or vehicles spewing out toxic lead fumes!

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    March 27, 2014 6:51 a.m.

    The EPA is all about protecting the public, and that is EXACTLY what is should continue to do.

    "Better safe than sorry," as the old saying goes. And United States citizens have had to be sorry all to often because individuals and businesses have enriched themselves at the great expense of everybody else, including future generations.

    If there is any question that the EPA might object to some endeavor, I would say check with the EPA FIRST before you damn up a stream to build a fish pond or decide to build a housing subdivision along the Virgin River.

    The purpose of government is to give us good governance, whether it inconveniences individuals or not.

    People who have declared government the enemy are fooling themselves.

    The Constitution exists in part to promote and provide for the general welfare and "secure the blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity." And the EPA exists to help make that happen.

    Get used to it.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    March 27, 2014 1:06 a.m.

    Overall the EPA is not aggressive, and indeed is an extremely weak regulator, in large part because of industry campaigns against regulation, particularly in the area of chemicals. One of the worst examples is the continued excessive use of the weed killer atrazine in the United States, implicated in birth defects. Dan can only look into his backyard to see how lax the EPA can be - Stericycle. The EPA's science in such cases is not state of the art.

    There is a general principle in environmentalism that industry tries to pollute right up to the point of mass public action against them. Again Stericycle is a superb example.

    I know Dan's point centered on watercourses, but judging the EPA has many other dimensions.