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.

Quote: 

"The EPA never identified any environmental problems with the pond
," Wood told FoxNews.com. "In fact, it's been a boom for the environment."

 
An EPA spokesman was not immediately available for comment when contacted Tuesday. The government had said Johnson violated the Clean Water Act
by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and claimed material from his pond was being discharged into other waterways.
 
As the EPA was demanding the pond be ripped out, Ray Kagel, a former federal regulator, claimed it was a benefit to the environment by creating wetlands, habitat for fish and wildlife -- and cleaned the water that passes through it.
 
Wood said Tuesday that the EPA has a "broad interpretation" of the Clean Water Act and noted that federal law clearly exempts stock ponds from the rules of the agency.
 
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.

---