Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:The Safe Drinking Water Act could include the laws/rules that the EPA wrote (some of them sensible, others not so much). There really is no need for 15,193 government employees to write and/or enforce the rules under the legislation.


Can you explain why there was a need for the EPA to go after the man that built a pond on his own property? Can you explain why a federal employee can't be fired for being a convicted felon?

Sounds like he dammed a river, did he not? What's the big deal?

Also, feel free to -gasp- learn something. Maybe you won't look like such a rightwing nutjob.


https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do


I wouldn't count on it tho, seaman.

Quote:Maybe the EPA should take a trip to Flint Michigan and tell them how safe and clean they have made their drinking water.

As I recall that was a local decision in order to save money which the EPA had nothing to do with. 

Quote:When government waste is brought up, liberals always target the military (which is mandated by The Constitution) but don't bat an eye when it comes to useless government agencies bureaucracies. 

Howsabout we fire the clowns in charge of each and slash their funding?

EPA will never go away. Too much $$$ involved.

Quote:Can you explain why a federal employee can't be fired for being a convicted felon?

Well since I actually read the article I know the EPA did fire him. They were overruled by the Merit Systems Protection Board, an agency wholly independent from the EPA. The EPA then paid the employee to by rid of the problem rather then spend the money to fight the case in court. Seems like the issue isn't with the EPA but with the MSRP.

 

Quote: 

 

Can you explain why there was a need for the EPA to go after the man that built a pond on his own property?

Seems like a private individual damming a public source of water for his own purposes is exactly the kind of thing authorities would like to know about. The fact they probably didn't have the authority to compel him to remove the pond would have been tested in the courts, which seems to me like the system is working. BTW, the "boom for the environment" is a direct quote from the man's lawyer. Hardly a fair and balanced source.

Quote:Well since I actually read the article I know the EPA did fire him. They were overruled by the Merit Systems Protection Board, an agency wholly independent from the EPA. The EPA then paid the employee to by rid of the problem rather then spend the money to fight the case in court. Seems like the issue isn't with the EPA but with the MSRP.

 

Seems like a private individual damming a public source of water for his own purposes is exactly the kind of thing authorities would like to know about. The fact they probably didn't have the authority to compel him to remove the pond would have been tested in the courts, which seems to me like the system is working. BTW, the "boom for the environment" is a direct quote from the man's lawyer. Hardly a fair and balanced source.

 

So a private citizen being dragged into court when he obtained a permit from a state agency is "The system working."  Because obviously lawyers are free.  

 

In the case of Flint Michigan, you still haven't reconciled the fact that the EPA couldn't be bothered when an entire communities water supply was relocated to a source that is known to be filthy and poluted, but a private citizen building a pond is a federal issue. has the world gone stark raving mad?

 

This would be funny, but i have seen example after example of the EPA showing up to private citizens houses with two guys and a probe and then informing the homeowner that the land that passed inspection at the time of purchase is now wetlands and they owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and penalties, in some cases facing jail time.  

 

There is a legitimate role for our elected officials to enact sensible measures to ensure that we have clean water and clean air.  What's currently going on at the EPA, as jag alluded to, is the idea that regulating waterways means any land that may have a puddle after a heavy rain or have a ditch adjacent to it is under the full authority of an un-elected federal agency and they can fine you into oblivion, imprison you, or confiscate your land any time they see fit.  There's also an attempt for a back door kind of cap and trade.  Essentially now in the interest of micromanaging CO2 emissions, any state that doesn't have a history of supporting the party currently in power can have their economy systematically destroyed by executive fiat.  

 

This flies in the face of any responsible concept of federalism.  

Quote:Also, feel free to -gasp- learn something. Maybe you won't look like such a rightwing nutjob.

https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do

I wouldn't count on it tho, seaman.

 

Actually, when I was E-3 and below I was referred to as "Airman".  I worked in the aviation part of The Navy not the surface or sub-surface part.

 

Quote:Well since I actually read the article I know the EPA did fire him. They were overruled by the Merit Systems Protection Board, an agency wholly independent from the EPA. The EPA then paid the employee to by rid of the problem rather then spend the money to fight the case in court. Seems like the issue isn't with the EPA but with the MSRP.

 

Seems like a private individual damming a public source of water for his own purposes is exactly the kind of thing authorities would like to know about. The fact they probably didn't have the authority to compel him to remove the pond would have been tested in the courts, which seems to me like the system is working. BTW, the "boom for the environment" is a direct quote from the man's lawyer. Hardly a fair and balanced source.

 

Regarding your first point, did the MSPB (yet another useless government entity) pay him, or did the EPA pay him?  Either way it was more money out of my pocket (as an actual tax payer).

 

Regarding your second point.  He was damming a natural source of water not used for human consumption or "average use".  Farmers, ranchers, etc. usually do that and have been doing it for years.  I don't know if in your visit(s) to our country you ever got out to the "real heart" of the U.S., but those folks aren't too keen on government interfering with normal life.

Its one of those over bloated government organizations that is better in theory than it is practice.  Force the states to have their own EPA and keep it at the state level.

Quote:Its one of those over bloated government organizations that is better in theory than it is practice.  Force the states to have their own EPA and keep it at the state level.

 

Bingo.

 

Let states manage themselves and keep Big Government away.

Quote:Actually, when I was E-3 and below I was referred to as "Airman". I worked in the aviation part of The Navy not the surface or sub-surface part.



Regarding your first point, did the MSPB (yet another useless government entity) pay him, or did the EPA pay him? Either way it was more money out of my pocket (as an actual tax payer).


Regarding your second point. He was damming a natural source of water not used for human consumption or "average use". Farmers, ranchers, etc. usually do that and have been doing it for years. I don't know if in your visit(s) to our country you ever got out to the "real heart" of the U.S., but those folks aren't too keen on government interfering with normal life.

Damming rivers/stream or anything of the like should never be done without a thorough investigation into the ecological and environmental impacts. Perhaps even checking into the local ordinances on permitting. That is if you give a hoot about anything more than yourself which I know is not really the modus operandi of the "real heart" you are referring to but it's still a good idea. You never know of your little project could be undermining a foundation down the way or doing damage so an aquifer or a myriad of other things.

As stated above, he obtained a permitt.

Quote:Bingo.

 

Let states manage themselves and keep Big Government away.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!  Let's not get crazy here and actually follow the doctrines our forefathers wrote.  Sheesh, states rights are so passe!

Here is my take.  The EPA when enacted was a fantastic idea and as written and intended would be useful today.  The problem is like all bureaucracy's in order to justify their existence they overstep their boundaries and far too often go unchecked.  I would love it if our liberal friends would abandon the idealogue that ALL government is good and never makes a mistake.  I would also love it if our conservative friends would acknowledge that NOT all government is bad and has a place in our lives.  We really need to stop fighting each other and start fighting "them".

Quote:Here is my take. The EPA when enacted was a fantastic idea and as written and intended would be useful today. The problem is like all bureaucracy's in order to justify their existence they overstep their boundaries and far too often go unchecked. I would love it if our liberal friends would abandon the idealogue that ALL government is good and never makes a mistake. I would also love it if our conservative friends would acknowledge that NOT all government is bad and has a place in our lives. We really need to stop fighting each other and start fighting "them".

Too reasonable.

Quote:So two stories popped up today in my news feed, both concerning the EPA.

 

In the first case, the EPA has to pay a convicted child molester $55k to retire because they couldn't fire him.  Never mind that he is a convicted felon.

 

In the second case, the EPA attempted to fine a Wyoming man for building a stock pond on his property.  It doesn't matter that the man obtained a permit from the State of Wyoming to build the pond, and it also doesn't matter that the pond actually is better for the environment.

 

Here's a really good point in the article.

 

Abolish the EPA.   Great idea.   Pollution regulations suck.   I think we should all go back to pumping our turds into the storm drains, and not have to deal with pesky things like sewage systems. 

 

While we're at it, I'm tired of the police department telling us what to do.  They make a lot of mistakes and do a lot of stuff I don't like,  Let's abolish them, too. 

Quote:Here is my take. The EPA when enacted was a fantastic idea and as written and intended would be useful today. The problem is like all bureaucracy's in order to justify their existence they overstep their boundaries and far too often go unchecked. I would love it if our liberal friends would abandon the idealogue that ALL government is good and never makes a mistake. I would also love it if our conservative friends would acknowledge that NOT all government is bad and has a place in our lives. We really need to stop fighting each other and start fighting "them".

Shoo, rabble rouser, and take your sound, nonpartisan logic with you!

Quote:Can you read? Because if you can, you should read my earlier post that pointed out the Safe Drinking Water Act and including the link to numerous laws and programs the EPA is involved in.

It's truly cringe-worthy reading his posts.

Oh Noeze!>!>!L!!U!U@#!#$  

 

 

The EPA did something that Fox News tells me I need to be really mad about and that we must now abolish that evil gubmint thing they do  that's infringing my liberties!!!

 

Look, I know that folks can be biased, but dude, at least do a little research and try to see both sides.  Are there issues with administrative organizations?  Uh yeah.  It actually happens in the private industry to, if you'd pull your head out of your rear, you'd realize that...  At any rate, here's what the EPA says.

 

Oh and JJ appears to be wrong again!!  The wyoming man did not get a permit to build a dam...  Nice try, but you got got, once again.  :-)

Here's the EPA side of it...

 

<p style="font-family:'Droid Serif', serif;color:rgb(68,68,68);">This description sounds as though Johnson simply dug a hole and added water. In fact, the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA found that in order to create the pond, he constructed a dam on Six Mile Creek, a waterway deemed by the EPA to be a tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which in turn is a tributary of the Green River, which is a “navigable, interstate water of the United States.”

<p style="font-family:'Droid Serif', serif;color:rgb(68,68,68);">Building the dam constituted a “discharge of pollutants” into “waters of the United States,” according to the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, and thus required a permit that Johnson did not have, or seek. As with the Lucas case, EPA officials say that Johnson received multiple warnings before any enforcement actions were taken.

<p style="font-family:'Droid Serif', serif;color:rgb(68,68,68);">The EPA rules regarding discharging pollutants into waterways are based on a substantial body of evidence showing that water quality and flow in tributaries and wetlands can affect the water found downstream. In an extensive review of that evidence regarding connectivity of waterways, the EPA notes:

Quote:Oh Noeze!>!>!L!!U!U@#!#$  

 

 

The EPA did something that Fox News tells me I need to be really mad about and that we must now abolish that evil gubmint thing they do  that's infringing my liberties!!!

 

Look, I know that folks can be biased, but dude, at least do a little research and try to see both sides.  Are there issues with administrative organizations?  Uh yeah.  It actually happens in the private industry to, if you'd pull your head out of your rear, you'd realize that...  At any rate, here's what the EPA says.

 

Oh and JJ appears to be wrong again!!  The wyoming man did not get a permit to build a dam...  Nice try, but you got got, once again.  :-)

Here's the EPA side of it...

 

lol

 

<p style="font-family:'Droid Serif', serif;color:rgb(68,68,68);">This description sounds as though Johnson simply dug a hole and added water. In fact, the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA found that in order to create the pond, he constructed a dam on Six Mile Creek, a waterway deemed by the EPA to be a tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which in turn is a tributary of the Green River, which is a “navigable, interstate water of the United States.”

<p style="font-family:'Droid Serif', serif;color:rgb(68,68,68);">Building the dam constituted a “discharge of pollutants” into “waters of the United States,” according to the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, and thus required a permit that Johnson did not have, or seek. As with the Lucas case, EPA officials say that Johnson received multiple warnings before any enforcement actions were taken.

<p style="font-family:'Droid Serif', serif;color:rgb(68,68,68);">The EPA rules regarding discharging pollutants into waterways are based on a substantial body of evidence showing that water quality and flow in tributaries and wetlands can affect the water found downstream. In an extensive review of that evidence regarding connectivity of waterways, the EPA notes:

 

<p style="font-size:17px;font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Andy Johnson, of Fort Bridger, Wyoming obtained a state permit before building the stock pond in 2012 on his sprawling nine-acre farm for a small herd of livestock.

<p style="font-size:17px;font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Not long after contruction, the EPA threatened Johnson with civil and criminal penalties – including the threat of a $37,500-a-day fine -- claiming he needed the agency's permission before building the 40-by-300 foot pond, which is filled by a natural stream.

<p style="font-size:17px;font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="font-size:17px;font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Under Supreme Court precedent, the federal government can regulate waters only if they have a "significant nexus" to navigable waters. Johnson's pond drains to a manmade irrigation ditch, where the water is used for agriculture, according to the Pacific Legal Foundation


"The only thing he has to do is plant willows around the pond and put in a partial fence to control livestock," Wood said. "The irony of this case is the government has insisted all along this isn’t a stock pond."
 

Nice try.  This is a clear case of a Federal agency disregarding the words and intent of legislation.  The concept of regulating navigable waters was intended if you built a damn on a body of water like the St. Johns river etc.  That has nothing to do with a creek feeding a stock pond.  For the purposes of their litigation the Feds wanted to reclassify the stock pond, which was permitted under state regulations, as something else for the purpose of dissuading this guy from raising cattle.  They threatened him with 16m dollars in fines just to get into a pissing contest with the state of Wyoming.  That's unacceptable to anyone who actually values private property and the 10th amendment.  

 

Next thing you know you'll have some ultralib from somewhere like the department of education sending out letters telling everyone that title IX means that a man can use the ladies room...  WAIT?