EPA attempts to defend drone surveillance program

EPA attempts to defend drone surveillance program

ijreview.com

Just when you thought the government couldn’t intrude upon personal liberty any farther, Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency believes they now need to watch us from the sky.  Those being surveilled are ranchers from Nebraska and Iowa, and the EPA claims that it protects the water supply.  Outraged, Nebraska’s congressional delegation wrote EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, requesting an explanation as to how she acquired the authority to perform these paparazzi shots of private property.  An article from Joe Duggan from the Omaha World-Heraldreports:

Snapping photos of livestock farms from an airplane is a legal and cost-effective way to help protect Nebraska and Iowa streams from runoff contamination, say officials with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”

The agency’s aerial surveillance program came under scrutiny last week when Nebraska’s congressional delegation sent a joint letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. The elected officials asked Jackson to reply by June 10 to a list of 25 questions, including whether federal law allows such surveillance.
Those in the Nebraska congressional delegation aren’t the only elected officials picking a fight with this unelected agency.  Duggan writes:

Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., a former U.S. agriculture secretary, said Friday he remains highly doubtful the agency has congressional authority to act as an eye in the sky.  “They are just way on the outer limits of any authority they’ve been granted,” he said.”

Jackson does defend the EPA’s actions against these allegations by saying that they aren’t actually using these photos to prosecute.  They only use them to check on Americans to see if they are doing anything the EPA would consider to be bad.  Duggan elaborates:

Photos taken during a flight are evaluated to see if it appears livestock waste is being discharged into streams, ponds or lakes. The agency is looking for runoff of livestock waste, a potential violation of the federal Clean Water Act.  The EPA does not levy fines or take other enforcement actions against a livestock producer based solely on photos, the agency said. If the photos indicate potential problems, an inspection is done at the site to determine if violations have occurred.”

The problem with this is that it turns American jurisprudence on its head, winding us back to the tyrannical Napoleonic Law.  While the Constitution says that you are ‘innocent until proven guilty‘, the EPA says you’re ‘guilty until proven innocent‘.  They’re just going to pilot their drones to your ranch to ‘make sure you’re not up to no good’.
While Jackson’s legal arguments disintegrate one after another for the simple fact that the EPA throws ‘due process’ out the window, Kurt Nimmo of Infowars reports:

The EPA has not addressed the constitutional question, including its wanton violation of probable cause under the Fourth Amendment. It merely states that it has authority to surveil the private property of farmers and ranchers. It defends its encroaching behavior as “cost-efficient.”

Well, that’s just fantastic!  So, the Nazi Gestapo, the Soviet KGB, and Oceania’s telescreens are fine, as long as they’re ‘cost-efficient’.  Sure, the EPA can violate a few hundred years of checks and balances, all in an attempt to save Mother Earth, as long as they make it inexpensive for the taxpayer.  Now, I’m off to set up a giant tarp over my backyard, just to be an annoyance.