Login

jj82284 · 05-19-2016, 11:00 AM

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

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.”

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.

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:

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.

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.



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?