- 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
0
Posted on 3/17/14 at 7:12 am to GumboPot
quote:
The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.
Well. DID he?
quote:
The property owner says he 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.
Perhaps... he should have seeked approval from the Army Corps of Engineers? Since that's what the law requires. just a though.
This is case in point to the true conservative view on property rights. In rightie land - property rights means their property - not yours. The fact the creek is part of a larger system of waterways spanning the properties of thousands or even more owners is irrelevant - this guy has the right to dam it up however he pleases, right?
This post was edited on 3/17/14 at 7:15 am
Posted on 3/17/14 at 7:14 am to SpidermanTUba
You never built a dam in a creek as a child?
Posted on 3/17/14 at 7:15 am to bencoleman
quote:
How much do you think it costs to hire a consultant? The EPA is overstepping and should leave the man alone.
I would bet that he can find someone to do the work pro-bono....but even if he can't I would bet that it wouldn't cost as much as a $75K a day fine and returning the pond back to its natural state.
Here is the thing...what if, for some reason, this pond is negatively impacting someone down stream? I don't know how this could be but I can easily see how damming up a stream on my property could cause a problem for my neighbors. Does that person have no right to also use their property as they see fit? I don't see a lot of difference here and in any zoning type ordinances....if you build something on your property you have a responsibility to ensure it does not negatively impact others.
As far as this guy hiring a consultant the state farm agency can probably complete the impact statement at little or no cost....it was probably already done at the state level for the state to approve the thing to begin with. It sounds like this guy is just being truculent for the sake of being truculent...and if you want to get in a battle of truculence with an agency that is designed for such play I can't think of a better one than the EPA....
Posted on 3/17/14 at 7:16 am to C
quote:
You never built a dam in a creek as a child?
We didn't have any creeks small enough. We dreamed of damming the bayou manchac of course but ultimately we settled for building a small pier - which the property owner then asked us to remove.
quote:
The proposed changes would give the agency a say in ponds, lakes, wetlands and any stream -- natural or manmade -- that would have an effect on downstream navigable waters on both public land and private property.
The federal government has authority to regulate all waterways connected into any system of waterways capable of supporting interstate commerce - i.e. pretty much every river, creek, stream in the U.S. Though the Supreme Court has reversed itself on other matters concerning interstate commerce - it has never issued an opinion contradicting the federal governments right to regulate all navigable interstate waterways and any stream, creek etc affecting them.
If this guy had built a pond isolated from the creek which he filled with purchased water - or with water he took from the creek in accordance with whatever his water rights are to that creek - or with rainwater (though in some dry states water rights affect that as well) - I don't think the EPA would have jurisdiction.
This post was edited on 3/17/14 at 7:24 am
Posted on 3/17/14 at 7:24 am to germandawg
quote:
I can easily see how damming up a stream on my property could cause a problem for my neighbors
Go ahead and name some. And remember this isn't hoover dam we're talking about.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 7:32 am to GumboPot
I get the lefties on this board love to defend pretty much everything EPA but really, if the story is correct, the man got APPROVED to do the pond. Is he supposed to be psychic and know in advance that the EPA would say they trumped the state approval?
We have more laws on the books than ANY man can know or be aware of. If a citizen does his duty and goes to a state agency and that state agency says OK, then for frick's sake, the EPA should be told to go frick itself.
If the EPA isn't happy with the state's approval, it would seem to me that they need to take that up with the state. Not frick with some guy who thought he'd done the right thing.
What the frick is wrong with any and all of you that think the EPAs actions here are anything short of criminal.
We have more laws on the books than ANY man can know or be aware of. If a citizen does his duty and goes to a state agency and that state agency says OK, then for frick's sake, the EPA should be told to go frick itself.
If the EPA isn't happy with the state's approval, it would seem to me that they need to take that up with the state. Not frick with some guy who thought he'd done the right thing.
What the frick is wrong with any and all of you that think the EPAs actions here are anything short of criminal.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 7:34 am to C
quote:
Wyoming State Engineer’s Office
Seems to me that his agency should be covering the guy's back. If not, then it appears the agency is saying the EPA has the final say so. If true, then I don't see a need for the state agency.
Should be disbanded and save the taxpayers some money.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 7:37 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
that would have an effect on downstream navigable waters
Funny how water works: all streams lead to something navigable. I wish congress had been a bit more definitive on so many things. Maybe that is your wish as well.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 7:41 am to C
quote:Yeah. It is hilariously brought. A waste of many extra words too. I mean, if they were going to write what they did, they could've just saved time and said the EPA can frick with you on EVERYTHING.
Funny how water works: all streams lead to something navigable. I wish congress had been a bit more definitive on so many things. Maybe that is your wish as well.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 7:49 am to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
where does the "eliminate the EPA" thing come from?
We won 2 World Wars, harnassed the atom and went to the moon without the EPA.
What have we accomplished since its establishment?
Same question for the U.S. Department of Education.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 8:08 am to GumboPot
First, IMO a "stock" pond and a damned-up creek are NOT the same thing. Secondly, he got the proper paperwork done with the state regulatory agency. Did he file any paperwork with the EPA? If he didn't how in the hell did they find out about it?
I am not an engineer, so this might be a dumb question, but wouldn't the creek flow return to normal levels after the pond reached its maximum water level?
I am not an engineer, so this might be a dumb question, but wouldn't the creek flow return to normal levels after the pond reached its maximum water level?
Posted on 3/17/14 at 8:38 am to germandawg
quote:
I would bet that he can find someone to do the work pro-bono....but even if he can't I would bet that it wouldn't cost as much as a $75K a day fine and returning the pond back to its natural state.
More of the liberal mindset. Spending more than is necessary, but less than is possible, is somehow saving money.
Makes no sense.
This post was edited on 3/17/14 at 8:40 am
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:06 am to SettleDown
quote:
I get the lefties on this board love to defend pretty much everything EPA but really, if the story is correct, the man got APPROVED to do the pond. Is he supposed to be psychic and know in advance that the EPA would say they trumped the state approval?
Usually state and federal permitting is coordinated. I don't know why Wyoming permitting is not coordinated with the COE in this case. In La. a CZM permit is reviewed and approved by the COE. In other words, La. coordinates their permitting with the federal government.
quote:
We have more laws on the books than ANY man can know or be aware of. If a citizen does his duty and goes to a state agency and that state agency says OK, then for frick's sake, the EPA should be told to go frick itself.
I agree.
From the article:
quote:
For now, the matter remains unresolved. Johnson says he’s not budging and there’s been no indication from the EPA they will withdraw the compliance order.
Regardless of the outcome, Johnson says his legal fight with the government agency is a teachable moment for his kids
“This is showing them that they shouldn’t back down,” Johnson said. “If you need to stand up and fight, you do it.”
I'm afraid this guy might be willing to die for his cause. Are any EPA employees willing to die for theirs?
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:17 am to GumboPot
The most important and telling quote in the entire article:
The brunt of the problem here, to me, is what seems to be the default mindset among many government agencies that someone is guilty until proven innocent and not the reverse. They glance at an issue, assume guilt, then put it on the citizen to prove their innocence. They treat what may have been a siphoning of a stream to fill a pond in almost the same way they would treat someone dumping nuclear waste.
quote:
“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)(C) stock pond exemption, EPA should make its case that a dam was built and that the Section 404 exemption does not apply.”
The brunt of the problem here, to me, is what seems to be the default mindset among many government agencies that someone is guilty until proven innocent and not the reverse. They glance at an issue, assume guilt, then put it on the citizen to prove their innocence. They treat what may have been a siphoning of a stream to fill a pond in almost the same way they would treat someone dumping nuclear waste.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:20 am to GumboPot
quote:Gonna get a Janet Reno like burning if he isn't careful.
I'm afraid this guy might be willing to die for his cause. Are any EPA employees willing to die for theirs?
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News