Letter to the Editor – June 2025

I read an article in the Jacksonville Review, May 2025 issue, entitled “You Asked for It,” that unfortunately castigated voters for taking part in the election of the most recent Administration, citing his opinion about funding and regulatory cuts, putting forth accusations of a lack of truth, lack of authenticity, misrepresentation and vilification. One could offer some counterpoint regarding every one of these opinions expressed. I and others have opinions as well, but I think I would like to adhere to my training and stay away from politically inflamed opinions as much as I can. I will therefore limit this letter to the subject of excessive environmental regulation.

As one that is personally involved in providing services to stakeholders such as ports, manufacturers, government and private entities, and has done so for over 40 years, I can tell you that the author of that article, probably not intentionally, is among many that minimize the issue of over-regulation, and how it is affecting people and the environment.

At present, projects that I am directly and centrally involved with such as embankment stabilization, wastewater treatment, sediment analyses and removal, bulkhead protection, environmental cleanups, and many other worthy projects, protective of both the environment and public safety, have struggled and have been held back for years as a result of tedious and often non-applicable regulation. These excessive regs are sometimes not only annoying but can be devastating. They are squarely placed on the shoulders of the stakeholders, sometimes entire communities, and ultimately on the shoulders of US citizens, all in the name of environmental protectionism.

I have and am presently engaged in these projects on the design and scientific level. My firm continues to get paid, not only for science and engineering, but just as much for answering the same questions repeatedly during permitting efforts to various overlapping regulatory bodies, who have somehow gained jurisdiction over some aspect of each of these projects.

I agree with the article writer’s acknowledgment of over-regulation, that it’s frustrating, and that we should just “work on reducing that.“ However, such blanket statements are made by all sides of this acknowledgement, and yet provide little remedy to this very real, hurtful, destructive and ever-growing regulatory process that often takes longer and costs more than the projects themselves.

By the way, citing the work of thousands of scientists and their peer reviewed work on detailed, mathematical models, first of all, does not speak at all to the monstrous regulatory (non-elected) establishment that has evolved.

Secondly, characterization of the scientific community, and the active promotion of this regulatory insanity via cryptic statements like “the time is short” and “our planet is hanging in the balance,” should perhaps be a subject for further discussion. But let’s not get too much into the weeds of that controversy just now. I observe climate change and concerns related to it should be carefully addressed.

Yet regarding “let’s work on that:” I have seen numerous legal, political and organizational attempts by regulated groups to, by reason, reduce, or at least modify burdensome, often “one size fits all” regulation, with little or no success.

My professional experience is that the only way to gain any ground in reducing this huge, deeply embedded regulatory bureaucracy is by doing so from the top.

I have noted often that many workers within these agencies are conscientious and energetic. A number of federal and state employees themselves routinely apologize for these delays and huge expenses incurred, expressing their own frustrations (usually informally), multiple projects, work fatigue, etc. Yet I do not observe that EVERYBODY agrees they are all doing a much needed and excellent job. Huge mountains of costly regulation, much of which is sourced from unelected regulatory engendered Federal register adoptions, fall far afield from the original intent of the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.

From what I’ve seen, for the most part, the chopping of funding for “critical“ agencies has not been random, and I look forward to seeing it continue.

Jack (John) Akin, MS, PE, ABI, HMS, IC
EMC-EMC-Engineers/Scientists, LLC