The state permit was disallowed, deal with the facts.
The epa stated that the tributary is within their jurisdiction and was affecting down steam waters... things are complicated and need way more investigation and study than the Fox news article gave it.
At the end of the day it boils down to this:
The epa's position is a reasonable one. You and jib disagree with it based on a Fox news article that lied by omitting facts.
Just cuz you disagree based on a skewed list of facts that support your bias doesn't mean we should shut down an entire federal agency. Lol, try again.
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".
thats pretty much how I see it. I think the middle ground is abolishing the federal EPA and mandating the states to have their own EPAs. That way instead of big gov trying to make a shoe fits all decision the states can make a decision that is reasonable to their side of things.
Quote:REFORMAT the EPA. Great idea. Pollution regulations suck. I think we should all REALIZE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT IN CHARGE OF local sewage systems. GIVING THAT POWER TO THE STATES WILL NOT IMMEDIATELY RESULT IN pumping our turds into the storm drains.
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 AUDIT them AND PUT AN END TO NONSENSICAL CRIMINALIZATION OF THINGS THAT DON'T SEEM TO MATTER MUCH.
fixed
Quote:The state permit was disallowed, deal with the facts.
The epa stated that the tributary is within their jurisdiction and was affecting down steam waters... things are complicated and need way more investigation and study than the Fox news article gave it.
At the end of the day it boils down to this:
The epa's position is a reasonable one. You and jib disagree with it based on a Fox news article that lied by omitting facts.
Just cuz you disagree based on a skewed list of facts that support your bias doesn't mean we should shut down an entire federal agency. Lol, try again.
At the end of the day the EPA relinquished its false claim of jurisdiction. Deal with the facts.
This was heinous. Again, the claim that a stock pond off a creek was navigable waterways would be like putting your son in jail for not completing a federal criminalbackground check before buying a watergun.
Quote:thats pretty much how I see it. I think the middle ground is abolishing the federal EPA and mandating the states to have their own EPAs. That way instead of big gov trying to make a shoe fits all decision the states can make a decision that is reasonable to their side of things.
fixed
But if the feds don't give me bread where will I get bread.
Quote:At the end of the day the EPA relinquished its false claim of jurisdiction. Deal with the facts.
This was heinous. Again, the claim that a stock pond off a creek was navigable waterways would be like putting your son in jail for not completing a federal criminalbackground check before buying a watergun.
What's "heinous" is an subjective term. The fact is that the situation was resolved. It was actually resolved in your favor. And to be quite honest, it's my opinion that the EPA's new policy regarding these tributaries and thier jurisdiction seems to be overly ambitious.
Via our federal judicial system, the issue appears to have been corrected. In addition to that, this is going through the courts to re-think the entire policy that was implemented. So it's not just a single person issue, but this will affect the entire nation (another good thing about having a federal system).
But because there was over-reach -- THAT WAS CORRECTED-- you think the entire system and the entire agency needs to be dismantled. That's a silly way of looking at the world. But, if you just look at it from a Fox News indoctrinated point of view, you see all things that are federal as evil. I see the system as self correcting. Sometimes slowing than I'd like, but self correcting none-the-less.
Reactionaries going to react. Imagine that.
And the calls for a state EPA. Rick Scott in charge of Florida's EPA. As if the developers haven't done enough.
Quote:Reactionaries going to react. Imagine that.
And the calls for a state EPA. Rick Scott in charge of Florida's EPA. As if the developers haven't done enough.
Ask anyone in flint Michigan if they want the state deciding water issues...
Quote:The state permit was disallowed, deal with the facts.
The epa stated that the tributary is within their jurisdiction and was affecting down steam waters... things are complicated and need way more investigation and study than the Fox news article gave it.
At the end of the day it boils down to this:
The epa's position is a reasonable one
. You and jib disagree with it based on a Fox news article that lied by omitting facts.
Just cuz you disagree based on a skewed list of facts that support your bias doesn't mean we should shut down an entire federal agency. Lol, try again.
Quote:What's "heinous" is an subjective term. The fact is that the situation was resolved. It was actually resolved in your favor. And to be quite honest, it's my opinion that the EPA's new policy regarding these tributaries and thier jurisdiction seems to be overly ambitious.
Via our federal judicial system, the issue appears to have been corrected. In addition to that, this is going through the courts to re-think the entire policy that was implemented. So it's not just a single person issue, but this will affect the entire nation (another good thing about having a federal system).
But because there was over-reach -- THAT WAS CORRECTED-- you think the entire system and the entire agency needs to be dismantled. That's a silly way of looking at the world. But, if you just look at it from a Fox News indoctrinated point of view, you see all things that are federal as evil. I see the system as self correcting. Sometimes slowing than I'd like, but self correcting none-the-less.
Of course, we can't believe a story since it's being reported on FOX News, so let me help you do a bit of research.
Since you disagree with the original source of the story, how about an
op-ed from a local Virginia newspaper?
Since you disagree with the original source of the story, how about the way that it was reported in the
New York Times?
Do either of those sources make you feel any better?
As far as the case being "corrected", it was only after the man sued the EPA.
Regarding the part in red, there is nothing "reasonable" about what the EPA did.
Quote:
There is some good news. The Johnsons have received hundreds of calls of support from landowners all over the country. Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead called to lend his support. The Johnsons also contacted state lawmakers, who in turn forwarded their pleas to Wyoming’s two U.S. senators, John Barrasso and Mike Enzi. Sen. Barrasso and Sen. Enzi also secured the help of Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, who is the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee. The three U.S. Senators have now joined the Johnsons in their fight against the EPA. The senators sent a March 12 letter to Nancy Stoner, the EPA’s acting assistant administration for water, saying they were troubled by Johnson’s case. Their letter stated, “Rather than a sober administration of the Clean Water Act, the Compliance Order reads like a draconian edict of a heavy-handed bureaucracy,” and they asked the EPA withdraw the compliance order.
<p class="" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif;">The Clean Water Act contains an exemption specifically for stock ponds. It is called a section 404 (f)(1)© exemption. The EPA has made a unilateral ruling in this case that the Section 404 exemption does not apply, but they never explained why. The senators have questioned that argument. “Fairness and due process require the EPA base its compliance order on more than an assumption,” they wrote. “Instead of treating Mr. Johnson as guilty until he proves his innocence by demonstrating his entitlement to the Clean Water Act section 404 (f)(1)© stock pond exemption, EPA should make its case that . . . the Section 404 exemption does not apply.”
Uh... That's our system of government, there JIB. Love it or leave it. You got yourself into a frothy lather based on your ideology. You failed to take into account that the same federal system you despise is what fixed the problem.
Not sure why you are having a tantrum... I thought I told you to have more fiber. Either way, the issue is resolved.
As I said, and I'll repeat so maybe it'll sink in: Administrative over-reach occurs whenever humans run things. For some reason, Fox News puppets think that anytime a government agency over reaches it means that we must take down the government.
But you fail to have faith enough in the Constitution to realize that the Constitution helped correct the issue. A constitution that created a strong federal judiciary system. But no, instead of seeing the benefit, you are trying to find rationalization for your fear of the big bad gubmint.
Quote:Uh... That's our system of government, there JIB. Love it or leave it. You got yourself into a frothy lather based on your ideology. You failed to take into account that the same federal system you despise is what fixed the problem.
Not sure why you are having a tantrum... I thought I told you to have more fiber. Either way, the issue is resolved.
As I said, and I'll repeat so maybe it'll sink in: Administrative over-reach occurs whenever humans run things. For some reason, Fox News puppets think that anytime a government agency over reaches it means that we must take down the government.
But you fail to have faith enough in the Constitution to realize that the Constitution helped correct the issue. A constitution that created a strong federal judiciary system. But no, instead of seeing the benefit, you are trying to find rationalization for your fear of the big bad gubmint.
I love how you FOX News hating liberals love to wave The Constitution to justify the federal government ruining lives. Please point out the part in The Constitution that says that the federal government can impose unreasonable taxes and/or fines on someone. Please point out where it says that we must have an EPA.
So what exactly about what the EPA did was "reasonable"? Those were your words. Which problem was "fixed"? Yes the man won his lawsuit but at a cost to him and his family. He had to sell off most of his livestock in order to pay legal fees and other expenses to defend himself. You know, because the federal government (the EPA) deemed that he was guilty until proven innocent.
Should someone and/or some agency not be held accountable?
I bet you want to get rid of the NIH too.
Quote:I love how you FOX News hating liberals love to wave The Constitution to justify the federal government ruining lives. Please point out the part in The Constitution that says that the federal government can impose unreasonable taxes and/or fines on someone. Please point out where it says that we must have an EPA.
So what exactly about what the EPA did was "reasonable"? Those were your words. Which problem was "fixed"? Yes the man won his lawsuit but at a cost to him and his family. He had to sell off most of his livestock in order to pay legal fees and other expenses to defend himself. You know, because the federal government (the EPA) deemed that he was guilty until proven innocent.
Should someone and/or some agency not be held accountable?
I actually believe in the constitution. You clearly hate it. I guess that's the difference between this liberal and your frothing fear mongering...
The constitution allows the congress to make law, the executive then is tasked with putting those laws into action. That's what gives legitimacy to every executive agency. But your too busy freaking out and hating liberals and young people and anyone you don't understand to just take a breath and relax.
Again, because you were too busy wanting to attack me because of my liberalism, you missed the part where I said that the epa over reached in this situation. But their policy here, which was corrected in the courts, isn't justification for your witch hunt to take down the entire agency.
Quote:I actually believe in the constitution. You clearly hate it. I guess that's the difference between this liberal and your frothing fear mongering...
The constitution allows the congress to make law, the executive then is tasked with putting those laws into action. That's what gives legitimacy to every executive agency. But your too busy freaking out and hating liberals and young people and anyone you don't understand to just take a breath and relax.
Again, because you were too busy wanting to attack me because of my liberalism, you missed the part where I said that the epa over reached in this situation. But their policy here, which was corrected in the courts, isn't justification for your witch hunt to take down the entire agency.
I wasn't attacking you at all. I simply asked you to clarify your comments. I asked a few simple questions.
1. So what exactly about what the EPA did was "reasonable"?
2. Which problem was "fixed"?
3. Should someone and/or some agency not be held accountable?
Here is a bonus question for you. How do I "clearly hate" The Constitution?
Quote:I wasn't attacking you at all. I simply asked you to clarify your comments. I asked a few simple questions.
1. <span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">So what exactly about what the EPA did was "reasonable"?
</span>
<span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">2.
</span><span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">Which problem was "fixed"?
</span>
<span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">3.
</span><span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">Should someone and/or some agency not be held accountable?
</span>
<span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">Here is a bonus question for you. How do I "clearly hate" The Constitution?
</span>
Well there's alot of subtlety that's lost via this form of discussion. The tone seems overtly antagonistic at times when I read your posts.
1. The execution, or what they did, based on the policy was not reasonable. It was over reach. What I'm pointing out is that the policy was reasonable. The specific situation, based on the facts, was not. However, it is reasonable to have a policy that ensures tributary waterways are not compromised in order to ensure the public good I'd protected. That is reasonable, is it not?
2 the issue between the individual and the epa has been resolved. Additionally, the policy is also being scrutinized in federal court as well. The injustice that we all agree on is being corrected via the judicial system. That's a pretty good thing.
3 so you want a scape goat? That's also what the courts are for. I'm assuming that the individual is suing for damages? Also, if you've ever held a job I'm sure that some employee of the epa is getting a talking to. Whether that becomes public is another matter.
4 well, to me the absolute bitterness you sometimes espouse when discussing certain agencies in the government makes me question how much you care for our current system. I'll leave it there, for now
Quote:Well there's alot of subtlety that's lost via this form of discussion. The tone seems overtly antagonistic at times when I read your posts.
1. The execution, or what they did, based on the policy was not reasonable. It was over reach. What I'm pointing out is that the policy was reasonable. The specific situation, based on the facts, was not. However, it is reasonable to have a policy that ensures tributary waterways are not compromised in order to ensure the public good I'd protected. That is reasonable, is it not?
2 the issue between the individual and the epa has been resolved. Additionally, the policy is also being scrutinized in federal court as well. The injustice that we all agree on is being corrected via the judicial system. That's a pretty good thing.
3 so you want a scape goat? That's also what the courts are for. I'm assuming that the individual is suing for damages? Also, if you've ever held a job I'm sure that some employee of the epa is getting a talking to. Whether that becomes public is another matter.
4 well, to me the absolute bitterness you sometimes espouse when discussing certain agencies in the government makes me question how much you care for our current system. I'll leave it there, for now
1. I appreciate you finally admitting that there was nothing reasonable about what the EPA did to this man. It is reasonable that there should be a policy in place to protect the environment. I'm not against that at all. However, what does some Washington bureaucrat know about raising cattle in Wyoming? The federal government should not have any involvement when it comes to land or land use, that should be left up to the states. The State of Wyoming had no problem with him building the stock pond, and issued him the proper permit(s) to do so.
2. The issue was resolved because 1 person fought back against the imperial federal government (that's what this country is turning into). However, the imperial federal government cost this man much of his livestock and livelihood. Because he fought back against the imperial federal government he lost a lot.
3. I wouldn't call it a "scape goat", I would call it finding the problem and rectifying the situation. After destroying a family's life, I would hope that more is done than "someone getting a talking to". I don't know if he has brought a lawsuit up to recover "damages", but even if he does and wins it, who pays for that? That would be me and the other people that actually PAY taxes.
4. I really care about our country, our government, our system, etc. I spent nearly 10 years of my life defending it under an oath and another near 20 years doing so. I do question and take offense when anyone questions my patriotism and/or love and respect for our Constitution.
My biggest fear is that I'm going to leave this life and this country to my grandson in worse shape than what I have lived through.
Does anyone actually believe market forces would prevent egregious pollution of our air and water absent any regulations?
Quote:Well there's alot of subtlety that's lost via this form of discussion. The tone seems overtly antagonistic at times when I read your posts.
1. The execution, or what they did, based on the policy was not reasonable. It was over reach. What I'm pointing out is that the policy was reasonable. The specific situation, based on the facts, was not. However, it is reasonable to have a policy that ensures tributary waterways are not compromised in order to ensure the public good I'd protected. That is reasonable, is it not?
2 the issue between the individual and the epa has been resolved. Additionally, the policy is also being scrutinized in federal court as well. The injustice that we all agree on is being corrected via the judicial system. That's a pretty good thing.
3 so you want a scape goat? That's also what the courts are for. I'm assuming that the individual is suing for damages? Also, if you've ever held a job I'm sure that some employee of the epa is getting a talking to. Whether that becomes public is another matter.
4 well, to me the absolute bitterness you sometimes espouse when discussing certain agencies in the government makes me question how much you care for our current system. I'll leave it there, for now
This isn't a one off. This is a systemic problem, specifically with this administration, of using the executive departments as an end around bypassing congress and trying to govern against the will of the people.
In this case there was a specific section in the above and entitled statute that specifically allowed an exemption for "Stock Ponds," The state agency issued a permitt for a STOCK POND, any reasonable person can see that this was a STOCK POND and yet a federal agency, with no compelling interest in public safety as evidenced by the eventual terms of the settlement, proceed to try and ruin this guys life?
If you are so hot on the constitution, then you should also be hot on the concept of enumerated power, original-ism, and legislative intent. The concept of federalism expressed by the founders is a system of checks and balances on federal power rendering all non-essential powers to the states, not a game of red rover red rover with the federal court system to see if you can find a judge who watched the DAIRY IS SCARY meme on youtube.
The concept of the EPA is predicated on the idea that companies shouldn't cause inordinate environmental impact and that we should have clean drinking water. The idea that we have farmers being put through hell like this while entire communities are left without clean drinking water (when the source of said water was relocated to a spot of known contamination) is a fundamental bastardization of constitutional government.
There are thousands of Americans who bought property free and clear only to have someone show up at their front door telling them about the exciting new regulations passed by unelected bureaucrats and the hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and penalties the home owner now owes if they want to keep their land. The president couldn't get Cap and Trade passed through the congress his party controlled, so now we have regulatory standards imposed by the EPA with punitive consequences for states that aren't likely to support the party of the current administration.
The concept of limited government is an acknowledgement that government agencies have a tendency to overstep their bounds. That's why any time we empower an agency with the full weight of the federal government that their role should be simple, unambiguous, and necessary. When you allow a state bureaucracy to become over inflated then the first thing to be crushed are the freedoms and rights of the people. Pointing this out and demanding action about it is an EMBRACE of the constitution, not a rejection of it!
Quote:Does anyone actually believe market forces would prevent egregious pollution of our air and water absent any regulations?
Does anyone actually believe that States shouldn't be the primary arbiters of environmental protection?
Quote:1. I appreciate you finally admitting that there was nothing reasonable about what the EPA did to this man. It is reasonable that there should be a policy in place to protect the environment. I'm not against that at all. However, what does some Washington bureaucrat know about raising cattle in Wyoming? The federal government should not have any involvement when it comes to land or land use, that should be left up to the states. The State of Wyoming had no problem with him building the stock pond, and issued him the proper permit(s) to do so.
2. The issue was resolved because 1 person fought back against the imperial federal government (that's what this country is turning into). However, the imperial federal government cost this man much of his livestock and livelihood. Because he fought back against the imperial federal government he lost a lot.
3. I wouldn't call it a "scape goat", I would call it finding the problem and rectifying the situation. After destroying a family's life, I would hope that more is done than "someone getting a talking to". I don't know if he has brought a lawsuit up to recover "damages", but even if he does and wins it, who pays for that? That would be me and the other people that actually PAY taxes.
4. I really care about our country, our government, our system, etc. I spent nearly 10 years of my life defending it under an oath and another near 20 years doing so. I do question and take offense when anyone questions my patriotism and/or love and respect for our Constitution.
My biggest fear is that I'm going to leave this life and this country to my grandson in worse shape than what I have lived through.
There has been talk about the EPA using the clean water act as a means of property confiscation for a while now. This isn't a one off, this isn't settled, they are one supreme court justice away from having the law say anything they want it to say and that's frankly pretty scary.
Quote:thats pretty much how I see it. I think the middle ground is abolishing the federal EPA and mandating the states to have their own EPAs. That way instead of big gov trying to make a shoe fits all decision the states can make a decision that is reasonable to their side of things.
The trouble with that is, pollution doesn't recognize state boundaries. So we could see Georgia deciding that pollution isn't really that important, and they wind up polluting the state of Florida.