Press Releases

Washington, D.C. (July 17, 2014) – Just before Americans lit up their barbecues and gathered for their local fireworks show, the EPA quietly slipped a notice into the Federal Register titled “Administrative Wage Garnishment” that would allow the agency to garnish non-Federal wages from U.S. citizens without first obtaining a court order.  The EPA claims that it has the right to do this under the Debt Collection Act of 1996.

Originally, the EPA viewed the rule “as a noncontroversial action” and said that it anticipated “no adverse comment” despite the widespread consequences it would have caused.  Only an arrogant, massive bureaucracy like EPA would consider an attempt to circumvent due process in order to take your money “non-controversial.” The agency also stated that the rule would take effect “September 2, 2014 without further notice unless the EPA receives adverse comments by August 1, 2014.”

Well the EPA certainly did receive adverse comments. Senate Western Caucus members David Vitter (R-LA), John Barrasso (R-WY), and Mike Enzi (R-WY) sent a letter to the EPA requesting that the agency withdraw its direct final rule immediately.  In the letter the Senators highlight the absurd amount of power the rule would give the EPA over private citizens as it would allow the agency to decide on its own “whether or not a debtor is entitled to an oral defense.”  It would also allow the agency to choose its own hearing officer, “regardless of whether the officer is an administrative law judge.”

In response to the swift and scathing backlash, the EPA decided to rescind the direct rule, but its fight to garnish the wages of private citizens is not over.  The agency switched the rule from a direct final rule to a regular proposed rule that allows for public comment until September 2^nd.

If the EPA pushes forward with this attempt it will directly affect Westerners like Andy Johnson of Wyoming and the Sackett family of Idaho.  Mr. Johnson built a pond on his own property that the EPA claimed violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) despite the fact that the pond is not polluted and serves as a water source for wildlife. The EPA threatened to fine him $75,000 per day for his supposed “violations.” 

The EPA also went after the Sacketts for attempting to build a home on a small plot of land that they purchased.  The agency used the CWA as justification for its action, and claimed that the couple did not have the right to challenge EPA in court.  The case went all the way to the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Sacketts had the right to go to court.  Justice Scalia wrote the court’s decision claiming that the CWA was not designed to allow for the “strong-arming of regulated parties into ‘voluntary compliance’ without the opportunity for judicial review.”

The fact that the EPA is once again attempting to strong-arm private citizens by taking their hard-earned money and denying them due process says a lot about the agency.  The rule is another gross example of the EPA expanding its regulatory reach over private citizens and the businesses that employ them.  The rule itself denies American citizens one of the most basic constitutional rights, and once again attempts to defy our nation’s highest court.

The EPA’s original assertion that the rule is “noncontroversial” and their expectations for “no adverse comment” shows the audacity that exists within the agency.  To add insult to injury, the EPA submitted the new rule two days before our country celebrated its 238 birthday, when our founding fathers broke away from a regime that imposed unreasonable taxes, and denied them a voice within their own government.

We were originally going to award the EPA 4 bulls for attempting to sneak this rule past Americans right before our National Holiday, but because the agency established a public comment period we will only award them three and a half.

Our Rating: