As a citizen and an elected official, I am increasingly aware of the costs to taxpayers, and to the economy, of regulation. It does not take a genius to figure out that the laws, rules, and regulations that have evolved in the recent past, contribute to a debilitating drag on our economy.
I am not advocating a radical revision of our system of governance. There are good reasons for many of the regulations. What I am saying, is that it is time that we, as a government, and as a people, take a comprehensive, holistic view of the bureaucratic universe…and start finding common sense ways to protect what needs protecting, and quit spending taxpayers’ money on that which does not. That we make sure to assess the true cost of regulations before we allow them to be put in place.
Let me give you a few examples:
Anybody can come to Wyoming, and with very little basis, demand that yet another species be added to the Endangered Species list. When they do this, the State of Wyoming is obligated to spend an enormous amount of money in time, personnel, and equipment to refute these claims…many of which ultimately wind up as frivolous and unmerited. Money that could be used elsewhere to greater advantage when it comes to protecting our precious natural environment.
Think of what all of the hoopla around the Sage Grouse is costing just in direct costs. Think of the lost revenue from oil and gas developments that have already been delayed, or completely eliminated, because of the uproar around this one example. Think of what that has cost our local economies.
It has become clear in working with coal bed methane projects on our ranch, that it is now nearly impossible for a family to work with a company to develop beneficial uses of the water because of short-sighted, poorly conceived, and inappropriate regulation.
I recently found out that every single stream in Wyoming is defaulted into a designation as a “primary” stream—meaning that it has flowing water suitable for swimming, fishing, and recreational boating. This is patently absurd in our semi-arid region. Far more practical, and far less expensive would be to simply change the default designation of all streams in Wyoming to “dry.” Stop spending the dollars to send personnel out to every little gulley and draw in the State—five different times to attempt to take water samples, take photographs, complete documentation, and file a ream of paperwork to establish that the default is not true. Anybody can access Google Earth, and can tell which draw runs water, without ever leaving their desk.
There is much talk about “affordable housing,” but very little discussion about how the plethora of rules, regulations, and requirements contributes to the high cost of housing. I have had developers tell me that they can build housing that the low middle income person can afford, but in order to do so they need the flexibility to build in greater density, to not have to put so much money into mandated infrastructure details like curbs and gutters, and other cost-saving devices. As cities, towns and counties come seeking more and more State dollars to provide workforce housing, I would encourage them to turn inward and take a long, hard look at their own zoning regulations and requirements, and see how much that is increasing the cost of building.
I have an elderly relative who owns several acres inside the city limits of Wheatland. They would like to sell it. But the town of Wheatland’s regulations prevent them from doing so without subdividing. So, what is the end result? They keep paying the taxes, because that is the easiest thing for them to do. As my relative says, “We’re old…we don’t want to go through all of that,” and any potential developer, and any potential family who could use the housing on that acreage, are out of luck. I doubt this is a problem found only in Wheatland. Every govenment could find examples of short-sighted, counter productive, and flat out expensive regulations on their books if they took a good, hard look.
My point is that there are many and various costs associated with over regulation. I encourage citizens and colleagues to look beneath the obvious, and to ferret out not only the direct cost of a regulation, but the wide-ranging ramifications, and the unintended consequences, and the opportunities stymied that all add up to a tremendous drain on our resources. We may have limited ability to do much about federal laws, but we ought to try to do what we can.
