The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been a thorn in the side of business for some time. While we like the idea of a clean environment, a lot of their policies seem to have little to do with helping the environment, and more to do with increasing revenues from fees and fines. On top of that, some of their proposals seem downright punitive towards new and existing business and take little care to consider the present state of the economy or the larger ramifications of new laws (often referred to as the โunintended consequencesโ effect). Take the latest news: this week, the EPA decided to โreconsiderโ (thatโs government-speak for backpedal or pull-back)ย imposing a new nation-wide cap (or limit) on how much sediment can be drained from a construction siteโs stormwater drain. The NAHB (National Association of Home Builders) immediately filed suit following the agencyโs pronouncement that they were pursuing this type of control. First of all, it wasnโt based on any real science and secondly, there wasnโt any clear evidence that there was even a real problem to be addressed. The withdrawal of the EPA in this matter was a huge win for both the construction industry and home buyers. Left unchecked, itโs amazing what the EPA might pursue in its highly unregulated activities.
EPA Reverses Course on Stormwater Rules
18 months ago the NAHB sued the EPAย over their proposal to come up with a numeric limit for the cloudiness of stormwater discharges (referred to as โturbidityโ). Apparently, once challenged, the EPA realized that they could not legally defend their position. The NAHB got involved because they actually did a little homework on the subject, and found that compliance would cost nearly $10 billion dollars ANNUALLY. ALL of that money would be passed onto consumers. In a recession-era, thatโs an incredibly inappropriate burden to place on home buyers and businesses.
Of course, like all government agencies โ they canโt seem to let t alone. While the EPA is dropping their current plan, they seem to be hedging and attempting to go back to the drawing board to figure out a legal way to impose limits on stormwater run-off on construction sites. To do this, the EPA claims it will talk to home builders and โenvironmentalย scientistsโ among others, to research the issue and collect real data. Amazing that the original process didnโt include this. If these people worked for me, theyโd be looking elsewhere for work. As we see it, the whole thing is absolutely ridiculous โ at least in this economy. Let it be and move on to things that really matterโฆ preferably things that involve downsizing the EPA to save costs and allowing the US economy more freedom so that it can recover.
And kudos goes to more than just the NAHB in this effort. Bothย the Small Business Administration (SBA) and even the federal Office of Managementย and Budget (OMB) had informed the [somewhat aggressively clueless] EPA that this type of poorly researched regulation would not stand up to scientific or legal scrutiny. The EPA didnโt take into account geographical differences across the country, and even used data collected from vendors who would be supplying the end-user solutions to โfixโ the problem โ and thatโs really where the legal snafus started to be extremely obvious and disconcerting.
Everybody is for clean water, just like the principles behind the EPA LRRP lead paint rule is good in principle, but the federal governmentโs desire to see one-size-fits-all solutions just doesnโt make sense when you consider the varied terrain and environmental differences that exist in the different climates and areas of our country. Back the the drawing board is a good start, but leaving this to the local governments and states is an even better idea in our opinion.
