The EPA, an American, and excessive power! cover art

The EPA, an American, and excessive power!

The EPA, an American, and excessive power!

Listen for free

View show details
If you or someone you love has been affected by breast cancer, know that you’re not alone. Together, let’s continue to encourage hope, early detection, research, and support for every family facing this fight.The Sheriff, the Rancher, and the Stock PondIn 2012, Wyoming rancher Andy Johnson did what ranchers have done for generations. He obtained a permit from the Wyoming State Engineer and built a small stock pond on his ranch near Fort Bridger. The pond was intended to water his cattle and improve wildlife habitat.Several months later, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began investigating the project. Then, in January of 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a Compliance Order alleging that Johnson had violated the Clean Water Act by constructing the pond without first obtaining a federal permit.The EPA ordered him to restore the property and threatened civil penalties that could eventually total millions of dollars if he failed to comply.Think about that for a moment.A rancher obtains permission from his own state.He builds a stock pond to water his livestock.Then the federal government arrives and tells him that the state’s approval isn’t enough.Ultimately, Andy Johnson challenged the EPA in federal court, and in 2016 the case settled. He kept his pond, paid no fines, and admitted no wrongdoing.There is another part of this story that is worth considering.Wyoming’s governor at the time was Governor Matt Mead.To his credit, Governor Mead publicly stated that Andy Johnson had properly obtained his Wyoming permit and described the EPA’s actions as heavy-handed. In other words, the Governor publicly acknowledged that one of Wyoming’s citizens had acted in reliance upon a permit lawfully issued by the State and questioned the federal government’s response.I believe Governor Mead was right to say so.But notice what did not happen.There is no indication that the Governor became involved at the beginning of the dispute, before years of litigation followed. There is no indication that the sheriff and the Governor coordinated their efforts to defend both the citizen and the authority of the State before Andy Johnson was forced into federal court.Now I’d like to ask a different question.What if the sheriff had become involved long before the lawyers?Not to interfere with the courts.Not to threaten federal officials.Not to pretend he could simply overrule Washington.But to fulfill the constitutional purpose of his own office.Imagine Andy Johnson walking into the sheriff’s office.“Sheriff, I obtained the permits required by my state. I built a stock pond to water my cattle. Now the federal government says I’ve violated the law and they’re threatening to destroy my livelihood.”What should the sheriff do?Should he simply shrug his shoulders and say,“That’s between you and the federal government.”Or does his oath require something more?A constitutional sheriff begins by investigating the facts.He visits the ranch.He examines the pond.He confirms that the pond was built for livestock.He confirms that the State of Wyoming issued a permit.He determines whether anyone has actually suffered an injury.Has neighboring property been damaged?No.Has anyone alleged pollution?No.Has anyone claimed that livestock or people have been harmed?No.Has anyone reported an actual victim?No.Now the sheriff asks a different question.If there is no injured party, no damaged property, no allegation of fraud, and no threat to public safety, why is governmental force being directed against this citizen?Notice the difference.The sheriff is not deciding who ultimately wins.He is not deciding federal jurisdiction.He is asking whether government has adequately explained the authority it claims before imposing enormous burdens on a peaceful citizen.The sheriff also recognizes something else.This is no longer simply a dispute between one citizen and one federal agency.The State of Wyoming issued the permit upon which this citizen relied.That means the authority of the State has also been called into question.So before contacting the federal officials, the sheriff first contacts the Governor.“Governor, I have completed my investigation.One of our citizens obtained a permit issued by the State of Wyoming and relied upon it in good faith.The federal government now claims that the authorization issued by this State is insufficient and is threatening extraordinary penalties against one of our citizens.As sheriff, I intend to continue protecting the rights of this citizen.I ask that you determine whether the State intends to defend the validity of its own permitting authority.”Now the Governor has an opportunity to act.He may conclude that the State should defend its own authorization.He may direct the Attorney General to review the matter.He may communicate directly with the federal government.Or he may decline to act.Whatever his decision, the sheriff has fulfilled his responsibility by ensuring that the...
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
No reviews yet
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.