Take CO2 for example. Public sentiment was such that Congress wouldn't declare it a pollutant, but the agency still did, and thinks that we're still obligated to abide by their regulations despite the fact that Congress chose not to act.
So there is value in reining in the enforcement agencies, even though part of the problem originates elsewhere. I see the argument for a non-political body to make some determinations in a technical field to avoid politicizing what is actually provable fact, but the way it's implemented it's like double jeopardy to our rights. If EITHER the political or administrative people want to shave away some of our rights, they get to just shave away. That's not right. Maybe the agency can make scientific findings and then submit them to Congress to be included in laws, then to be enforced by an executive agency but with no adding other things to regulate on their own say-so, but whatever, this way has to go.
EPA is the symptom. The laws are the disease.
You get rid of the EPA then something else or some other agencies or agency will take its place because those laws have to be enforced by the executive branch, the President.