Among the reasons the EPA should either be disbanded

or- if left in existence- put on a VERY short leash.
At issue is the EPA’s enforcement of the Clean Water Act through so-called administrative compliance orders, which are government commands that allow the agency to control the use of private property without the annoyance of having to subject its actions to judicial review.

The Sacketts contend that the compliance order was issued erroneously and they would like the opportunity to make their case in court. Yet according to the terms of the Clean Water Act, they may not challenge the order until the EPA first seeks judicial enforcement of it, a process that could take years. In the meantime, the Sacketts risk $32,500 in fines per day if they fail to comply. And complying doesn’t just mean they have to stop building; they must also return the lot to its original condition at their own expense.
You'll love this:
For its part, the EPA argues that old-fashioned judicial review would simply get in the way. As the agency states in the brief it submitted to the Supreme Court, “A rule that broadly authorized immediate judicial review of such agency communications would ultimately disserve the interests of both the government and regulated parties, by discouraging interactive processes that can obviate the need for judicial action.”
Translation: "You want us to actually be answerable? In court? We don't want to!"

More on the hearing here: including
So far, all the lower courts that have reviewed such claims agree with the government that the agency’s compliance orders are not subject to judicial review. They have said that because the EPA must prove a violation to a judge for the court to levy fines, that is the proper time for the courts to get involved.

The Sacketts counter that the compliance order is mandatory; they say it requires action to avoid the potential of ruinous fines. Even the prospect of waiting to see whether the EPA will go to court — it has years to make the decision — deprives the couple of their land and leaves them “to the mercy and whim of EPA.”
So the lower court judges say "We shouldn't let judges get involved(we shouldn't let the peasants challenge EPA in court) until EPA actually 'proves a violation'. So it's just fine for EPA to ruin you with fines and fees and take your land away from you so long as they haven't actually gone to a judge themselves." Which is such a level of bullshit that if it were all piled in one place the EPA would order you to clean it up or be fined a million bucks a day.