EPA favors: Aid too far
Published: Sunday, April 14, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
The Environmental Protection Agency endangered about 80,000 farmers and ranchers and their families — and showed whose side it's really on — by releasing personal information on them to radical environmental groups.
Earth Justice, the National Resources Defense Council and the Pew Charitable Trust obtained their names, phone numbers and email and physical addresses under the Freedom of Information Act.
Yes, the EPA contends state or federal law required releasing much of the info. And, yes, much of it already was available publicly from various sources. But by wrapping it all up in one neat package, the EPA did its radical fellow travelers quite the favor.
Fox News reports that U.S. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., wants answers:
Did the release comply with the federal Privacy Act of 1974?
And with the Homeland Security and Agriculture departments opposing creation of such a public database, why did the release happen at all?
And given that the groups ostensibly sought to ensure Clean Water Act enforcement regarding “concentrated animal feeding operations,” why does the release include data on farmers exempt from such enforcement because they feed fewer than 1,000 animals?
The EPA has asked the groups to return the info; Pew has, but that's like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. Affected families must hope they'll be spared further harm by radical enviro-whackos aided and abetted by an EPA that has given the public one more reason not to trust it.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ObamaCare: HIT’s hit
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Nelson Mandela: The real legacy
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- The Thursday wrap
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- Corrections reinvention