- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: EPA plans to start garnishing citizens who "pollute"...
Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:20 pm to DelU249
Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:20 pm to DelU249
quote:
Fox Mulder
quote:There really is no point arguing with someone who would put something like this in writing.
the FDA is making products more expensive for you. Their number one mission is more funding, more people...as is the inevitable function of any agency of government. They are not making anything safer for you, they are just making it more expensive and blocking you from access to other products (needlessly)This is the real problem with admin law...our world changes rapidly and the pace of progress increases as we move forward...sometimes we no longer need things we once did...The FDA had a time and place...but companies are stricter on themselves than the FDA is...essentially the FDA exists to extort citizens and business...it is a leach on our society. The FDA isn't the reason you're not eating rat burgers, wearing toxic makeup or ingesting unsafe and untested medicines...that would be consumer awareness, a 24/7 media with constantly expanding tributaries of information and the good nature of the average American consumer (we WANT green products, we WANT clean food, we WANT to buy from businesses who support marriage equality, we WANT to support businesses who treat their workers fairly, we WANT a lot of things, and if Xcorp doesn't give them to us on our terms, we'll find out very quickly, we'll go elsewhere and they'll be fricked (also, contrary to popular belief, companies are more worried about consumer revolt than appearing before congress and they don't put profits ahead of safety because as you know...being safe, makes them profitable.)
0
Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:35 pm to SpidermanTUba
I've actually issued garnishments and am familiar with administrative tax law so you can keep the arrogant name calling to yourself. I'm perfectly familiar with the appeals process as well.
The problem is that things like tax administration and child support are fundamental bedrock necessities needed to run a civilized society. Ensuring that these funds are collected necessitates garnishments. It's a massive reach to suggest this practice should be allowed to collect EPA fines which in many cases are completely arbitrary. Garnishment should be an absolute last ditch effort to collect a debt anyway. Doing it to collect outrageous fines like $75,000 a day is pure lunacy regardless of what appeals process is set up. The idea that fines can be that outrageous in the first place is ridiculous.
The problem is that things like tax administration and child support are fundamental bedrock necessities needed to run a civilized society. Ensuring that these funds are collected necessitates garnishments. It's a massive reach to suggest this practice should be allowed to collect EPA fines which in many cases are completely arbitrary. Garnishment should be an absolute last ditch effort to collect a debt anyway. Doing it to collect outrageous fines like $75,000 a day is pure lunacy regardless of what appeals process is set up. The idea that fines can be that outrageous in the first place is ridiculous.
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 5:38 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 5:56 pm to Govt Tide
quote:
The problem is that things like tax administration and child support are fundamental bedrock necessities needed to run a civilized society.
And protecting the air and water are not?
quote:
It's a massive reach to suggest this practice should be allowed to collect EPA fines which in many cases are completely arbitrary.
If one believes their fine is arbitrary that is a ground for appeal. In fact that is the standard set out in the APA--"arbitrary and capricious". So if the court finds it to be so it is set aside. You should be aware though that some statutes actually set out what the fine amount is, e.g. X$ per day of violation.
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 6:03 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:13 pm to wfeliciana
We've cleaned the air and water quite nicely since the EPA was set up and have done so without heavy handed garnishments against private citizens. It's one thing to enforce heavy fines against a factory dumping trash or chemicals into a lake or river and an entirely different matter to garnish a heavy fine against a middle class individual who had rainwater that carried sawdust into a lake on his property. The former is a legitimate reason for the EPA to be aggressive while the latter is an absurd and frightening trampling of an individual's private property rights. I can live with a garnishment against a company that blatantlyrics pollutes the environment like the first situation but am disgusted by fining and garnishing the second incident.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:24 pm to Govt Tide
quote:
frightening trampling of an individual's private property rights.
Ah yes that good old trope-property rights. Well the S. CT. has dealt with that issue many times. And not ruled the way you would like. Like I said statutes often lay out the fine (the Clean Water Act does). And if the EPA would be aggressive in collecting fines against corporation and not individuals (who have been found to be in violation just like the corporation) do you know what would happen? The corporations would file an appeal under the APA, alleging unequal treatment, and thus an arbitrary and capricious action by the agency.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:34 pm to wfeliciana
So if a farmer accidentally spills some fertilizer or herbicide on the ground near a lake and the fertilizer or herbicide gets into a lake on his property after a thunderstorm washes it there and kills a few fish, are you cool with the EPA slapping a huge fine on him and putting him out of business?
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 6:36 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 6:42 pm to wfeliciana
quote:Not the same is it?
behind on child support, your wages are garnished
Equivalency would involve the spouse and his/her attorney deciding what amount the opposing party should pay in child support, then garnishing his wages prior to the judicial system ever getting involved.
quote:Again, there is no court. There is no judge. There is garnishment. There is a kangaroo appeal hearing. Then the courts might get involved.
Appear in a state lower court and judge
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:01 pm to Govt Tide
quote:hypocrite!
I've actually issued garnishments
quote:
The problem is that things like tax administration and child support are fundamental bedrock necessities needed to run a civilized society. Ensuring that these funds are collected necessitates garnishments. It's a massive reach to suggest this practice should be allowed to collect EPA fines which in many cases are completely arbitrary. Garnishment should be an absolute last ditch effort to collect a debt anyway.
So basically - because you have decreed the environment isn't worth protecting - it shouldn't be enforced.
That's a brilliant argument.
quote:
Doing it to collect outrageous fines like $75,000 a day is pure lunacy regardless of what appeals process is set up. The idea that fines can be that outrageous in the first place is ridiculous.
How do we know the fine is outrageous? All we know is its amount!
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 7:03 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:03 pm to Govt Tide
quote:
So if a farmer accidentally spills some fertilizer or herbicide on the ground near a lake and the fertilizer or herbicide gets into a lake on his property after a thunderstorm washes it there and kills a few fish, are you cool with the EPA slapping a huge fine on him and putting him out of business?
"accidentally" - right!
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 7:04 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:04 pm to wfeliciana
quote:
And protecting the air and water are not?
quote:wfeliciana, there's your answer.
collect EPA fines which in many cases are completely arbitrary
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:09 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:12 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Drinking? or is this baseline?
SpidermanTUba
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:13 pm to NC_Tigah
Re: Wyoming "pond" builder
LINK
They aren't fining him for "building a pond" - as FOX News falsely claims. They're finding him for damming up a creek and discharging dredge and fill material into the creek.
LINK
They aren't fining him for "building a pond" - as FOX News falsely claims. They're finding him for damming up a creek and discharging dredge and fill material into the creek.
quote:
10.
On May 30,2013, the EPA performed an inspection of the Site and verified that an
approximately 40-foot reach of Six Mile Creek had been filled during the construction of a dam,
impacting approximately 785 feet of the Six Mile Creek channeL The dam was observed to be
composed of sand, gravel, clay, and concrete blocks.
quote:
13. The material discharged into Six Mile Creek is and was at all relevant times "dredged
material" and "fill material" as defined in 33 C.F.R. § 323.2(c) and 33 C.F.R. § 323.2(e), respectively,
and "pollutants" as defined in section 502(6) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6)
This post was edited on 7/11/14 at 7:28 pm
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:29 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
All Andy Johnson wanted to do was build a stock pond on his sprawling eight-acre Wyoming farm. He and his wife Katie spent hours constructing it, filling it with crystal-clear water, and bringing in brook and brown trout, ducks and geese. It was a place where his horses could drink and graze, and a private playground for his three children.
I like how you leave out the part about him damming up a creek. That's some red neck shite right there! DURR! Just dam up the creek - no one will notice!!
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:30 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
"dredged
material" and "fill material" as defined in 33 C.F.R. § 323.2(c) and 33 C.F.R. § 323.2(e), respectively,
and "pollutants"
quote:"You may have" = GUILTY !
you may have violated section 301 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1311, by discharging dredged and fill material into Six Mile Creek without authorization
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:32 pm to SpidermanTUba
Small Creeks are dammed up everywhere on farm lands. No different than what beavers do. No big deal.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 7:34 pm to NC_Tigah
Well let's post the whole thing
quote:Res Ipsa Loquitur
Dear Mr. Johnson:
In a letter to you dated May 22, 2013, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
indicated that you may have violated section 301 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1311, by
discharging dredged and fi.ll material into Six Mile Creek without authorization by a CW A permit issued
by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The EPA's letter invited you to submit, within 21 days of
receipt of the letter, information that you believe demonstrates that the EPA's description ofthe work on
Six Mile Creek was incorrect or that the activities did not constitute a violation of the CW A. The letter
also asked you to inform the EPA within 21 calendar days of receipt of the letter if you were interested in
negotiating the terms of an administrative order on consent (AOC) under which you would take steps to
come into compliance with the CW A. The EPA did not receive any response from you to the May 22,
2013, letter.
Based on our review of all available information, the EPA has determined that you are in violation of the
CW A. The CW A requires that an authorizing permit be obtained from the United States Army Corps of
Engineers prior to the discharge of pollutants (i.e., dredged or fill material) into waters of the United
States. Sec 33 U.S.C. § 1311. Waters ofthe United States include both surface waters and wetlands as
defined by 33 C.F.R. § 328.3.
Specifically, you, or persons acting on your behalf, have discharged dredged or fill material into waters
of the United States without authorization under the CW A. These discharges of pollutants occurred in
conjunction with the construction of a dam on Six Mile Creek on your property located in the SW 1/4 of
the NE 114, Section 30, Township 15 North, Range 115 West, Uinta County, Wyoming.
LINK
Posted on 7/11/14 at 9:38 pm to NC_Tigah
No, I don't agree with you. He has a hearings officer, he has his rights to present evidence, etc. Then when he is found to have violated the law, he then is assessed a penalty according to statute. If he doesn't pay EPA proposes to be able to garnish his wages, to fulfill a legal debt owed to the US. He could appeal the initial ruling of being in violation, he could appeal the garnishment-both to a federal court. You assertion would make any administrative hearing a "kangaroo court" as you describe it. Administrative hearings are pursuant to a statute passed by Congress, the existence of them have been upheld by federal courts. If you are saying you don't believe in them then that's fine.
Also, as to his finding of violation. I'm not privy to the entire record but on the facts set out in the finding letter he is clearly guilty. To take the action he did without a Corps permit violates federal law (the CWA). He's not the first to be found in violation for such actions.
Also, as to his finding of violation. I'm not privy to the entire record but on the facts set out in the finding letter he is clearly guilty. To take the action he did without a Corps permit violates federal law (the CWA). He's not the first to be found in violation for such actions.
Posted on 7/11/14 at 10:00 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Did you misread this? This means that he was sent a letter and in that letter it was indicated that he may have caused a violation. It does not mean that they are still in doubt... it says nothing about the current status.
In a letter to you dated May 22, 2013, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
indicated that you may have violated section 301
quote:this part above is where they announce their determination, mostly because Mr. Johnson refused to reply and ignored the letters from the EPA.
Based on our review of all available information, the EPA has determined that you are in violation of the
CW A.
GUILTY = GUILTY
Posted on 7/11/14 at 10:05 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
ignored the letters from the EPA.
I think is where the frustration lies. Ignoring letters doesn't make you guilty. The CWA is too ambiguous and wrought with various interpretations.
Page 4 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News