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.”

---