Yes, Nixon created the EPA with near unanimous support.
Putting environmental law in the hands of the states creates a race to the bottom where states with more loose regulation end up siphoning jobs from states that are more heavily regulated; IMO, this is an unwanted consequence of state level laws. Americans in NY shouldn't lose their jobs because Americans in Kuntucky allow companies to cut corners...
The agents working for the EPA work for specific divisions of the EPA, devided into 10 different ones. For example, my home state Oregon is one of four states( Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington) the Northwest division of the EPA watches over... You're telling me they know nothing about local intricacy but it seems to me that they are largely a semi-local entity, at least in terms of enforcement... It's not as if they fly over from Washington to shut down a mine, that's the local office of the EPA's job... They do have headquarters in D.C. but doesn't pretty much every government agency?
Aside from that, they do work with local and state governments and they also work with the indian reservations... So it's not as if they are duplicating state enforcement as much as enhancing it, and making it more consistent and flexible.
You say prices have gone up because of regulation, but all you offer is a single anecdotal; One case does not make a trend.
Also, you say get rid of the EPA? I say even if you dont like laws and enforcement at the Federal level that's STILL no reason to get rid of the EPA entirely... According to Wiki:
So my point here is that even if you toss out law enforcement, there are several alternative functions of the EPA(research, voluntary programs, etc). The State's rights argument is about the only reason the federal government arguably shouldn't be enforcing environmental laws - but even if the States won that battle the EPA should continue to exist, because enforcement isn't all they do.
