It figures, Obama caves on the Keystone pipeline and it is a joke. It is not April Fool’s Day yet “O.”
Today, I drove west on US Route 30 through a construction zone. This road is the original cross-country highway across America stretching from New York to San Francisco, but now it is a local road replaced by Interstate eighty. It doesn’t really matter which direction I drive, the road is under construction. It is a nightmare slalom course through colorful orange barrels. All along the route there are signs, paid for by you, and me declaring “WETLAND NO INTRUSION.” Often they attach them to a temporary fence stretched across a property in question. Route 30 crosses several creeks, forest preserves, and genuine wetlands. Each area is defined by a fence that is patrolled by the EPA for intrusion . What in the world does it mean, and what protection does it afford to you and me? With a little research I determined that the EPA intention is to decrease the impact of a project on a wetland.
So, here I sit in the Department of Transportation Office designing a major road improvement that widens a road from two lanes to four. My road crosses several creeks which means I have to build more bridge lanes to cross. Now how in the world do I do that without encroaching on the wetland? The EPA wants me to minimize encroachment. As an engineer, it is my job to get the project done to specification on time, and within the estimated cost. Why would I destroy more stream than is necessary to build my bridge? Isn’t that I am building a bridge evidence it is not my intention to destroy the creek? Why do you make me add cost to survey the line of allowed encroachment, build a fence and hang a sign to remind me where the line is?
A sensible engineer would lay a couple of pipes across the span and fill in over it to create a roadbed. In doing this he gambles that pipes he laid will accommodate the largest rush of water nature supplies. If he loses the road floods and or washes out. In order to prevent that he builds a bridge which minimizes restriction to water flow. He doesn’t need a stupid reminder from the EPA about his responsibility. His job is to keep traffic moving safely and quickly.
How many road projects are there in America, and how many creeks and wetlands with fences and signs? The cost is horrendous. So what? Well, I just paid my 2011 income tax and I’m pissed about my contribution to the cause. I am not in the one percent being picked on by Occupy Wall Street, and Obama, and by now I am probably no longer in the middle class since I haven’t earned a penny in ten years. Every dollar I pay in tax hurts, and every dollar I pull from my 401K advances me a bit closer toward SSI and Medicaid. All you youngsters out there better be praying that I die off before that happens or the burden of providing for my welfare will fall upon you. That is why I say get rid of the EPA, and a number of other burdensome agencies that have no useful purpose in society other than to harass the citizenry, and stop real progress from happening..
- Supreme Court Affirms Right to Challenge Government Power Grabs in Sackett v. EPA; Justice Alito Cites CEI Amicus Brief (openmarket.org)
- Idaho Couple Wins Fight Against EPA (foxnews.com)
- Court backs Idaho couple in battle with EPA (washingtontimes.com)
- Historic Supreme Court ruling allows the Sacketts to fight EPA takeover of their land (ppjg.me)
- EPA: Instrument of Tyranny (americanclarion.com)