- 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 7/12/14 at 4:35 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 7/12/14 at 4:35 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
"You may have" = GUILTY !
Certainly if you don't respond to any of their inquiries that's the way it looks to any reasonable person.
BTW - why did you leave out the part about them damming up a creek without a permit?
0
Posted on 7/12/14 at 4:45 am to C
quote:
Small Creeks are dammed up everywhere on farm lands
6 mile creek is a tributary to the Green River. You don't get to just dam it up however you like without a permit. That's the law.Sorry your red-neck brain tells you different.
Andy Johnson was well aware of the law by the time the EPA decided to fine him. He had ignored letters from the Army Corps of Engineers and then the EPA. I'm sure FOX would like to believe one day they just sent him a big fine without giving him a chance to fix the problem - that's not at all what happened.
I love how righties thing "personal property" means you can grab whatever public natural resources you can get your hands on for your private use This isn't really much difference from Cliven Bundy - (only difference is Andy Johnson doesn't appear to big a gigantic racist)
This post was edited on 7/12/14 at 4:48 am
Posted on 7/12/14 at 4:48 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Well let's post the whole thing
quote:
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
Res Ipsa Loquitur
That's what happens if you refuse to provide any evidence or even make a case at all
This post was edited on 7/12/14 at 4:50 am
Posted on 7/12/14 at 4:50 am to wfeliciana
quote:
Then when he is found to have violated the law, he then is assessed a penalty according to statute.
....and then he can appeal to the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court.
Posted on 7/12/14 at 4:54 am to mmcgrath
quote:
quote:
In a letter to you dated May 22, 2013, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
indicated that you may have violated section 301
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.
quote:
Based on our review of all available information, the EPA has determined that you are in violation of the
CW A.
this part above is where they announce their determination, mostly because Mr. Johnson refused to reply and ignored the letters from the EPA.
You seem to think this is a criminal case.
Its not. Its a civil case. If you refuse to present evidence or show up in court for a civil case - YOU LOSE BY DEFAULT. That's not just how it works for government vs. joe citizen, it works the same for joe citizens v john citizen.
Johnson has plenty of time to respond to their inquiries with evidence he had not made a violation.
This post was edited on 7/12/14 at 4:55 am
Posted on 7/12/14 at 4:57 am to C
quote:You're right. Because
Ignoring letters doesn't make you guilty.
this isn't a criminal issue.
Its a civil issue. And yes, if you are named in a civil justice matter and refuse to respond to inquiries or attend court - you will lose by default. That's the way the law has worked pretty much all over the country and federally for as long as the cows have been coming home. But I'm sure you'll tell us now that it a big evil government conspiracy.
This post was edited on 7/12/14 at 4:58 am
Posted on 7/12/14 at 8:01 am to C
quote:It isn't ambiguous in this case. And ignoring a notice to appear for criminal charges in a criminal case would result in a warrant for your arrest. There are different ways he could have built a "stock pond" but he wouldn't have it continuously refreshed and dumping back into the stream. The flow on that thing is impressive.
I think is where the frustration lies. Ignoring letters doesn't make you guilty. The CWA is too ambiguous and wrought with various interpretations.
Posted on 7/12/14 at 8:15 am to mmcgrath
quote:What specific material was deposited downstream? How much of it? How was it identified? What was its effect on either navigable waterways or drinking water?
It isn't ambiguous in this case
Or was the complaint ambiguous and speculation based?
Posted on 7/12/14 at 8:21 am to mmcgrath
quote:
It isn't ambiguous in this case.
What amount was dumped in and how did it effect the flow of the creek? If my kid plays in the same creek he would likely be guilty of the letter of the law by building a rock damn or using a toy shovel to dig up river silt.
Posted on 7/12/14 at 10:06 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
What specific material was deposited downstream? How much of it? How was it identified?
all specified in the letter. read it. linked above.
quote:
What was its effect on either navigable waterways or drinking water?
The EPA doesn't have to show its effect.
Posted on 7/12/14 at 10:08 am to C
quote:
What amount was dumped in and how did it effect the flow of the creek?
It doesn't matter. You're not allowed to dam a creek that flows into a navigable waterway without a permit.
Lots of people build shite without permits. They didn't do their homework or thought they could get away with it. Then the government sends them a letter and they retroactively apply for the permit and soon after forget about it. But every now and then there is one a-hole who will insist it is his right to dam up waterways without consulting anyone else. He'll go to FOX News and whine and then all of a sudden every conservative in the nation will become indignant at the idea of enforcing a law that has been enforced for over 40 years.
This post was edited on 7/12/14 at 10:09 am
Posted on 7/12/14 at 10:24 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:Of course not.
The EPA doesn't have to show its effect.
Question: In scenarios where the EPA alleges environmental damage, why should it have to demonstrate it is protecting anything?
Question: Why should the EPA have to prove it is protecting anything especially when state agencies approve the project?
Answer: The EPA doesn't have to show anything. Why? Because it simply sets the fines, garnishes wages, and controls who hears appeals.
Posted on 7/12/14 at 10:25 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:How does that pertain to the Wyoming case?
But every now and then there is one a-hole who will insist it is his right to dam up waterways without consulting anyone else
This post was edited on 7/12/14 at 10:27 am
Posted on 7/12/14 at 10:29 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
But every now and then there is one a-hole who will insist it is his right to dam up waterways without consulting anyone else
quote:Because that's what happened.
How does that pertain to the Wyoming case?
Posted on 7/12/14 at 10:33 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
You're not allowed to dam a creek that flows into a navigable waterway
Haha there isn't a creek out there that doesn't flow into a navigable waterway. That's the absurdity of it.
quote:
It doesn't matter
So you'd be cool with the EPA fining kids playing in a creek. That's the absurdity of the power you're ok with granting to the EPA which was not the intent of the law.
Posted on 7/12/14 at 10:36 am to mmcgrath
quote:
But every now and then there is one a-hole who will insist it is his right to dam up waterways without consulting anyone else
quote:Except it isn't
Because that's what happened.
quote:
The property owner followed the state rules for a stock pond when he built it in 2012 and has an April 4-dated letter from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office to prove it. “Said permit is in good standing and is entitled to be exercised exactly as permitted,” the state agency letter to Johnson said.
Posted on 7/12/14 at 10:44 am to NC_Tigah
quote:But it is. He dredged the creek and built a dam out of fill material ( concrete and sand)... and a lot of the crap just travelled downstream.
Except it isn't
Posted on 7/12/14 at 10:47 am to C
quote:If by "playing" you mean building a 40 foot dam, then yes.
So you'd be cool with the EPA fining kids playing in a creek.
quote:Yes, your comparison is absurd.
That's the absurdity
Posted on 7/12/14 at 2:29 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The EPA doesn't have to show anything. Why?
Because the landowner waived his right to contest the accusations by failing to respond after repeated inquiry That's why.
If you're ever named in a civil matter of any kind, I encourage you to just ignore it. When you lose by default, then you should call up FOX News and start whining like a little baby.
This post was edited on 7/12/14 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 7/12/14 at 2:35 pm to C
quote:
Haha there isn't a creek out there that doesn't flow into a navigable waterway.
Then too fricking bad. If you want a build a house - you might wanna check if you need a building permit. If you want to build a fricking DAM - you also might wanna check. Its called common sense.
Johnson probably could have built his damn if he hadn't been a total moron and consulted the EPA about the permitting process. Instead he has been a hard head moron - (probably getting advice from the politards) - and he's going to wind up paying out his arse and may lose his stupid little dam.
quote:
So you'd be cool with the EPA fining kids playing in a creek.
The EPA doesn't have any rules that forbid playing in a creek.
Page 5 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News