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.  

---