So...<p>1. Bees start to turn red, causing people to think of the maraschino cherry factory. They're tested and found to be carrying red die #40.<p>2. The cherry grower looks for help with all the bees coming into his factory.<p>3. The New York Times runs an article implying that the bees are red because they're harvesting factory runoff.<p>4. The bees are found to be harvesting from vats of cherries in transit within the factory. Those vats are sealed, and the red bee problem is no more.<p>5. The Brooklyn DA's Office notices the <i>Times</i> coverage. They've investigated the factory owner for marijuana production already, but failed to find anything they could stick him with. They suggest to the Department of Environmental Conservation that this merits an official check of the factory for illegal syrup runoff.<p>6. The DEC checks for illegal runoff, and also for marijuana. They find neither.<p>7. A new DA is elected and decides to drop unresolved cases. This prompts the Office to try one last time to get the cherry factory guy.<p>8. Although it is now definitively established that there was no illegal runoff and the bees were feeding on in-production vats (which they're not doing any more), the DA's Office gets the DEC to investigate the factory once again for, you guessed it, illegal syrup runoff. They justify this based on the old news coverage.<p>9. The DEC finds no illegal runoff. They do find marijuana this time, though.<p>Truly, a high point in good governance. How exactly can the DEC investigate this guy for a problem that (a) it's already investigated and found no evidence of, and (b) is supported only by a theory that is already known to be false? :/