Example, I work for an environmental firm. We recently finished a clean-up project that cost the taxpayers of our state around $500,000. It cleaned some hydrocarbons out of groundwater, yes, but that groundwater was not a drinking water source, nor source of any other use.Eventually that groundwater may have flowed into a river, but no other uses exist downstream for probably 500 miles. The risk to public health was nill, and the cost of compliance was way over what any benefit could possibly be, and will continue to skyrocket since the site will now be monitored for ever after.
This is not an effective use of money, nor the talents of scientists. It happened soley because an EPA regulation was written, and is now enforced regardless of cost/benefit analysis. Multiply this by thousands of regualtions, and you've got a collassial waste of time, money and talent that ought to be going toward more effective uses.
I’m not here to defend the EPA, other than to say that some things they do are good. Certainly, they are a bloated bureaucracy.
But they arguably serve a constitutional function in addressing pollution issues between states. Again, if you don’t like the law, fire the lawmakers. I can’t equate the EPA with, say NPR or NEA which serve no apparent constitutional function.