Here’s how the EPA gets its reputation as a rogue agency

The Environmental Protection Agency has frequently been referred to as a rogue agency of the federal government.

The big stuff of global warming and shutting down production of a vital energy source to power our country and the lives of its citizens and, in the process, putting thousands of people out of work are reasons enough for growing controversy. But sometimes it’s the little things that inform us the best.

Something just unfolded in a court settlement that’s so superbly illustrative of why the agency gets hammered for overreach in controlling the lives of U.S. citizens that I just shouldn’t pass up the opportunity to shine some light on it.

Here’s the case in point:

In 2012 Andy Johnson of Fort Bridger, Wyo., constructed an environmentally friendly stock pond on his nine-acre farm for a small herd of livestock.

He obtained the requisite state permit before building the pond. It became a safe and reliable water supply for his animals and also a habitat for fish and wildlife, as well as a filter cleansing the water passing through it.

Then along came the EPA. Instead of showing appreciation for creating those environmental benefits, the agency accused him of violating the Clean Water Act, demanded that he destroy the pond and threatened him with daily fines of $37,500 if he did not comply.

With penalties tallying tens of millions of dollars, Johnson sought the help of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which sued the EPA and charged the agency with violation of the Clean Water Act because stock ponds are expressly exempt from that law.

The foundation’s staff attorney, Jonathan Wood, summarized the plight of his client:

“You can imagine how terrifying it must be to receive such an order. In an instant, Andy Johnson’s future, and that of his children, was thrown into turmoil. Would he be prosecuted? Would he be assessed large fines that, being an ordinary person, would cause his family’s financial ruin? Would the government essentially take control over his property, which was also his home?”

Earlier this month the federal government caved in and reached a settlement fully supportive of Johnson’s pond.

It will remain, he won’t pay any fines or concede any federal jurisdiction to regulate the pond, and the government won’t pursue any further actions against him or his family.

Wood declared the outcome “a victory for common sense and the environment (bringing) an end to all the uncertainty and fear that the Johnson family faced.”

I realize this, to most, would seem a small thing. But it’s precisely illustrative of how the agency gets its ugly reputation that some would say is richly deserved under the Obama administration.

This story was originally published May 27, 2016 at 6:52 PM with the headline "Here’s how the EPA gets its reputation as a rogue agency."