re: corporate welfare vs socialism

If no property is being damaged then we are wasting time talking about it. When it comes to externalities, which is what you were describing in your hypothetical, the issue is in fact property damage. Damaged crops, polluted river killing fish etc...

when the state owns that property, which is in fact a regulation of its use, then these issues become problematic, because its regulation of said property is not exhaustive and its regulations are based on a guilty before proven innocent basis. Regulation is notoriously slow to develop, and even slower to adapt to new information and circumstances. Private property owners are not. They can document their losses in a non-arbitrary manner, using common monetary figures. Any damage to the river owner or the downstream land owner can be taken to court in order to resolve the issue.

State regulations always have unintended consequences that either negate the stated purpose of the regulation or create new environmental issues. If one were to make a regulation prohibiting the dumping of a certain concentration of fluoride into a river system, they haven't incentivized a solution to fluoride in the river system, they have only incentivized the marginal level of compliance with such regulations. They don't necessarily make the river water safer (though sometimes they do), they regulate the amount of fluoride in the water. There is a huge difference between the two concepts. Property damage is still possible for downstream entities, and in fact, the upstream entities are often protected from damage liability assuming they are in compliance with the arbitrary standards for fluoride concentration. This is completely wrong and backwards. It kills the incentive for private entities to police themselves and it incentivizes marginal performance. There is literally no regulation that can protect businesses from damage from other businesses. There is only regulation that punishes those who do so in a particular fashion. That is hugely important to understand. Knowing that this is the case, one would have to be enormously arrogant or pitiably foolish to think they could anticipate with any degree of certainty all of the possible causes of damage before the fact. It is impossible. In our current circumstances, businesses are perfectly content to lean on regulators like the EPA for protection vice being proactive in limiting their liabilities. That is what government regulation gives us.

EPA regulations are also a very powerful tool of wannabe monopolists. For instance, if the safe levels of fluoride in the water are 1ppm, but the EPA regulation states that the concentration must .5ppm, then that simple and arbitrary change in standards might exclude all but on manufacturer from producing this product, as they could potentially be the only players with the capability of meeting said standard. Virtually all government regulatory agencies were founded by the leaders of the industries they regulate. There is a reason that this is true, and It has nothing to do with protecting the environment. This is why private property advocates believe that "regulation" should be a private affair, even in rivers, because damage claims are non-arbitrary and the potential for needlessly strict regulations that form monopolies is eliminated. If you damage property, you pay for it. If you don't, then enjoy your day.

The EPA has done some good things for the US. Nobody ever said that there need not be a body that functions as the EPA was intended to function. There are, however, critical weaknesses in the concept of the state operated EPA. The EPA does not operate on a profit basis, meaning that decisions and regulations that they enact are not motivated by a desire to reduce damage liabilities. They are made for political and completely arbitrary reasons. If people "feel good" about a particular regulation or the result of a regulation, this satisfies the EPA. Even if that means serious and significant issues arise from the regulation. Unfortunately, those issues are frequently ignored until the political winds change.

We don't need the EPA and we don't need these state imposed regulations. There is nothing about this process that is unique to the state, but the ability to destroy wealth and monopolize industry is certainly unique to the state. Given a sane property rights policy and privatization of these problem areas, it will be up to the actual owners of the land, and not some fictional "public goods" holder as to what regulation is appropriate for their property.