EPA seeks to regulate spilled milk

  If you've ever worked for any government entity, you know how it goes. 
  First, you hear rumblings of concern about some non issue. 
  Perhaps, if you're lucky, you'll be warned that something's coming, regulation wise, with regard to this particular issue. 
  Then the fatal day arrives. 
  You get an email/ letter/ notification that the government entity in charge has created a new regulation that will set into motion 

1) more paperwork for you

2) written justification for whatever you're doing regarding the offending issue  

3) more rules about the offending issue 

4) a justification for the government entity to stay employed.

  Well, that's the bottom line, now, isn't it.
  More paperwork. Justify your job, make new rules, based on justifying the government entity's job.
  This is what farmers are facing now with regard to milk.
  What, you say?
  Milk?
  What's milk ever done.
  Here's the justification.
  Since milk has some animal fat, aka oil, in it, it is now proposed that the EPA needs to regulate milk spillage. 
  Farmers, some of whom are barely eking out a living, will now have to fill out more paperwork detailing their plans in case of a milk spillage.
  The Holland Sentinel details the EPA's plans to treat milk like oil, because of the butter fat.
  Here's the EPA rationale from the Stossel blog:

EPA regulations state that “milk typically contains a percentage of animal fat, which is a non-petroleum oil. Thus, containers storing milk are subject to the Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Program rule ...

  Thomas Sowell, who has written about the new regulations, cites the New York Times article: Obama May Find Useless Regulations Are Scarcer Than Thought. You can tell by the article that the NY Times has never heard of a regulation it didn't like. All regulations are good.

  Sowell at the Washington Examiner:

It is going to cost the taxpayers money as well, since the EPA is going to have to hire people to inspect farms, inspect farmers' reports and prosecute farmers who don't jump through all the right hoops in the right order. All of this will be "creating jobs," even if the tax money removed from the private sector correspondingly reduces the jobs that can be created there

  So we see clearly the pattern of behavior here. 
  We kill the jobs we don't like (dairy farmers, doctors, oil workers, coal miners) and create the jobs we like (IRS agents, bureaucrats, EPA regulators, lawyers).
  Can anyone see a problem here?