Subscribe to Newsletter

To subscribe to our newsletter simply add your email below. A confirmation email will be sent to you!

Clallam Co., WA: Local activist raises questions to Congressman about EPA violations

U. S. Representative for the 6th Congressional District of Washington State recently held a town meeting, and at least one person raised questions.  Pearl Rains-Hewett, a property owner and grandmother, wrote the following as an open commentary to Kilmer:
I did attend your town hall meeting in Port Angeles Yesterday.
You stated you would answer all questions you received and asked that we report violations by government agencies.
These rules carry with them significant unfunded mandates that will cost state and local governments tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars.
Taken from US Senate Report “Clouded Waters”
These new rules are not the outcome of LEGISLATION or rigorous scientific findings, but the direct result of a number of LAWSUITS BY ENVIRONMENTALISTS.
 May 25, 2013 | 9:00 pm Examiner Editorial The Washington Examiner
Officials at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency colluded on 71 cases since 2009 with private sector non-profit activists to use federal courts to circumvent democratic accountability statutes)
Regulating behind closed doors, the cozy relationship between the Feds and environmental groups
Imagine the outcry if the nation woke up this morning to New York Times and Washington Post headlines reporting that in order to settle a lawsuit against Charles and David Koch, officials with the Environmental Protection Agency had met behind closed doors with them to iron out a deal that effectively allowed the brothers to rewrite regulations as they pleased. Imagine, also, that the EPA and the Kochs then got a federal court to issue a decree ratifying the deal and giving it the force of law? The sun would not likely set on a peaceful America until the EPA/Koch deal was utterly repudiated and those in government responsible for it frog-marched to jail after being charged with multiple violations of the Administrative Procedures Act.
So where were the outraged headlines for any of the 34 times since 2009 that the EPA did similar closed-door deals, but with the Sierra Club rather than the Kochs? Or the 20 times the agency accepted closed-door deals with another environmental activist group, the WildEarth Guardians? Why no headlines for the nine deals EPA accepted with the Natural Resources Defense Council, the six with the Center for Biologial Diversity or the five with the Environmental Defense Fund? In fact, none of the 71 closed-door deals EPA has accepted since 2009 with private parties involved in environmental advocacy and activism got front-page headlines.
(The Washington Examiner)
All of these deals are unintended consequences of the “SUE AND SETTLE” process included in major environmental laws adopted since 1970. Here’s how the process works: First, the private environmental group sues the EPA in federal court seeking to force it to issue new regulations by a date certain. Then agency and group officials meet behind closed doors to hammer out a deal. Typically in the deal, the government agrees to do whatever the activists want. The last step occurs when THE JUDGE issues a consent decree that makes the deal the law of the land. No messy congressional hearings. No public comment period. No opportunity for anybody outside the privileged few to know how government regulatory policy is being shaped until it’s too late.
THAT’S HOW SUE AND SETTLE WORKS, so it’s understandable that, as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce notes in a comprehensive new report on the process, “several environmental advocacy groups have made the SUE AND SETTLE process a significant part of their legal strategy.” It’s also a significant funding tool for them because in most of the cases (65 percent, or 49 of the 71 cases involving the EPA) the suing group’s legal fees ARE PAID BY TAXPAYERS. (Incredibly, the Government Accountability Office found two years ago that it could not determine how much the government spent on such legal fees).
There are multiple reasons to repeal sue and settle but the two most important are its inherently anti-democratic character and the mockery it makes of transparency and accountability in government. CONGRESS PASSED THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT IN 1946 TO ENSURE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE RULE-MAKING PROCESS. In the decades since, there have been countless occasions in which PUBLIC COMMENTS FORCED AGENCIES TO MODIFY OR WITHDRAW DEEPLY FLAWED REGULATORY PROPOSALS.
But SUE AND SETTLE CUTS THE PUBLIC ENTIRELY OUT OF THE RULE-MAKING PROCESS. That must be changed and necessary reforms will be the focus tomorrow in this space.
My questions to you, Derek,
Question (1)  What is the beauty of the law making process in the United States of America?
Question (2) What is the LEGAL  step by step  process for creating  American LAW?
Question (3) Since when does a FEDERAL JUDGE replace “WE THE PEOPLE” in the Due Process Of Creating LAW In the United States Of America?
 As my local elected representative you are accountable to “We the People”
You stated that you became a member of Congress to clean things up and that you meet every week with 20 other representatives on issues that affect the American people.
Question (5) Will you bring up this EPA VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT at your next meeting?
Pearl Rains Hewett
A concerned American Grandmother

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref.]

Search Citizen Review ARCHIVES for keywords, stories


Search Citizen Review
(Current News - from Jan. 2012 to present)

Note about Searching this Website

If you wish to use this website to research by topic or keyword, there are TWO search engines - one for the current stories as posted in our Wordpress format, and the ARCHIVE search engines, which goes back in time to 1999.  Be sure to use both to access stories relative to your search that covers both time periods. - Ed.