Here’s the Thing, EPA—We Don’t Believe You

Here’s the Thing, EPA—We Don’t Believe You

The EPA has a problem, and it's not just that mustard yellow river in Colorado.
Andrea Ruth
By

In recent weeks, a group of Environmental Protection Agency contractors working at the idle Gold King Mine in Colorado broke through the barrier of a wastewater holding pit, suddenly releasing 3 million gallons and counting of toxic, heavy metal­-laden water to flow into the Animas River, which serves as a major water source for much of the region. The EPA’s initial response has been predictably slow and unsatisfying. Essentially, they’ve given us all their best efforts and issued by a blanket apology that no one’s actually accepting. Or, in other words,  ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄.

Therein Lies the EPA’s Problem

Americans despise the EPA, and as a result most people aren’t inclined to trust any of the answers or assurances the agency has offered following its disaster. After decades of shaking down individuals and businesses alike for minor, merely technical (i.e. paperwork) infractions, they finally seem to be facing a large-scale backlash, one that is entirely the result of their own impetus.

Since the 1970’s, the EPA has positioned itself as the nemesis of businesses and private citizens alike.

Since the 1970’s, the EPA has positioned itself as the nemesis of businesses and private citizens alike. With a true believer’s conviction in the purity of their own radical goals, coupled with the backing of federal resources and regulatory police power, the EPA has ruthlessly targeted whomever they regard as bad actors on the environmental stage.

Their ability to affect ever-­increasing regulations, which lead to ongoing compliance costs, has made operating a business in many areas incredibly cumbersome. Rules are often enforced arbitrarily, and options for recourse are rarely satisfactory for anyone trying to argue against an EPA ruling. Essentially, no one is safe. Whether you’re an international oil company or just a small time dairyman in rural Washington, you will be made to comply. And if you are deemed to be acting out of compliance, you will be made to pay.

Americans Don’t Tolerate Hypocritical Bible­-Thumpers

Added to these kinds of hatred-inducing policies is the blatant hypocrisy displayed by the EPA in the Colorado spill. The main—albeit rhetorical—question is this: If the waste water from an old mine contaminating a major water source isn’t a major cause for concern for the people, animals, and the earth in general, then why are small businesses required to file for Stormwater Permits for possible runoff that occurs when it rains (for fear that it might make it into our water supply)?

Putting Americans’ lives deliberately in danger is no big concern when balanced with the radical environmentalist plans created by the Left.

Even the typical punishments regularly inflicted by the EPA for such transgressions are off the table for this incident. Of course, no one expects the EPA to fine itself (“Sovereign Immunity” and all that), and we all understand that when the states and municipalities sue the EPA for extenuating cleanup costs and damages, taxpayers will be footing the bill. But even though EPA Chief Gina McCarthy has announced she accepts full responsibility, hopefully in the following weeks and months there will be employees called out (and hopefully fired) for allowing this to happen in the first place. Any private company in a similar position would already be drafting resignation letters to appease the EPA gods.”

All of this has led to a groundswell of outspoken animosity toward the EPA over the inadequate response to the spill last week, rather than the usual timid, under­-the­-breath grumblings. After initially closing down the river and warning people not to drink the water—a sensible and trustworthy message, mind you, which is we should expect from an agency as rabidly dogmatic about the purity of America’s waterways—we’re now told not to worry. According to ABC News, “The EPA has said the contaminants were rolling too fast to be an immediate health threat. Experts and federal environmental officials say they expect the river system to dilute the heavy metals before they pose a longer-­term threat.” See? The water’s fine!

At the same time, though, we’re being told that only locals would notice the difference in the water. Hm. Nope. Sorry. All of us seeing the photos on the news can promise you that the Animas River looks obviously sick and contaminated. In the same article from CNN, which is merely touting the EPA’s line and assuring us that residents need not be concerned about the effects of the spill, a seemingly throwaway line catches my attention: “Typically it takes years or even decades for health problems from metals to develop.”

Well, that’s…interesting. At least by then there could be a Republican in the White House, am I right?

But as the EPA’s plans inherently involve all of us, we have every right to be angry and distrusting of what happened in Colorado.

Various other health officials have come forward to tell residents that while there are elevated levels of toxins in the water, like lead and arsenic, it’s nothing you couldn’t get from various other things you may eat or drink. Unsurprisingly, residents affected by the spill aren’t buying it. Officials from New Mexico, Utah and the Navajo Nation have joined in the effort to contain the damage they now have to deal—damage that is entirely derived from the EPA’s carelessness. Indeed, the EPA would never let such carelessness slide for anyone else.

As if we needed any more reasons not to trust the fair­-mindedness of the EPA, we find out in a letter to the editor of a local paper that a week prior to the spill, a retired geologist spelled out in near prophetic form what would end up happening on August 5th. The reason for the EPAs actions are explained by GatewayPundit, Jim Hoft:

The letter detailed verbatim, how EPA officials would foul up the Animas River on purpose in order to secure superfund money. If the Gold King mine was declared a superfund site it would essentially kill future development for the mining industry in the area. The Obama EPA is vehemently opposed to mining and development.

The EPA pushed to apply its Superfund program to the Gold King mine for nearly 25 years. If a leak occurred, then the EPA would receive superfund status. That is exactly what happened.

And what do you know; the EPA later admitted that they misjudged the pressure in the gold mine before the spill—just as this editorial predicted.

These kinds of machinations by President Obama’s EPA are indicative of the lengths this most Machiavellian administration is willing to go to achieve a policy end. Putting Americans’ lives deliberately in danger, no matter the time frame, is no big concern when balanced with the radical environmentalist created by the Left.

But as these plans inherently involve all of us, we have every right to be angry and distrusting of what happened in Colorado. The Obama Administration, its EPA, and various local shills like Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper can all go on telling residents of the region that the water’s fine. But we aren’t obligated to believe them, much less like them. And why should we?

Andrea Ruth is an avid observer of news and politics. She lives in the Pacific Northwest with her daughter.
Photo by Ian Lucier

Copyright © 2018 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.