Want to build a small pond on YOUR property?

[dan_bgblue]

Go to your state's local NRCS office and apply for a permit. Receive an approved permit to construct a small pond. The EPA finds out about it, tells you to destroy the pond and return the land to it's previous state. Then when you co not comply, they start fining you mega bucks for non compliance. The band of thugs at 1200 Pennsylvania Ave need to be be disbanded, then arrested for crimes against the economy and the citizens of the entire USA.

$37,000 per day

[dan_bgblue]

And on another front.................

Even though a federal judge issued a ruling that blocked the rule from taking affect in 13 western states, the high and mighty EPA says it is going forward with a new federal rule to protect small streams, tributaries and wetlands. They are not going to wait until the issue makes it's way thru the courts, they are just going to bulldoze their way over everyone and the law and do what they want to do..

EPA says clean water rule in effect despite court ruling

[Darrell KSR]

I'm not an EPA defender, but I'd be careful in rushing to defend the landowner as well. Your rights as a property owner are limited, for good and valid reasons--where they impact others.

I can't dump a bunch of poison in my backyard, because it would get into the water table and impact my neighbors, and potentially others. According to this story, this guy's installation of a pond on his property impacted the natural flow of waterways. Nobody has that absolute right.

Now, it's possible that's a bunch of horse hockey. The guy said on film that the waterway they claim was affected is 100 miles away. Seems pretty specious. But that's the litmus test to me. If it impacted the natural waterway flow, it needs to be restored. If it is Washington bureaucracy at its finest, go suck an egg, EPA.

[dan_bgblue]

Darrell, when the local NRCS and the state engineers office okayed the pond construction, the EPA should stay out of the state's business unless they can show that there was intent to break the law. The NRCS is charged, by the USDA, to control land use in the region. They do not take their job lightly. Ponds, levees, terraces, etc all impact the natural flow of water, so do highways, houses, railways, and just to mention another one, artificial turf on football fields.

The EPA is overstepping their authority when they choose to ignore local authority from another federal department in a spurious effort to make a case over a small creek that eventually flows into a navigable stream which is 100 miles away.

Once the pond is full of water, the natural flow of water returns

[kingcat]

Speaking of small ponds. A couple of years back my cousin awoke to find his nice little fishing pond was totally gone. It seems a sinkhole opened up right in the middle and the whole thing emptied over night. It was well stocked too. Probably 75' X 100' and six or seven feet deep. Been there for a lot of years

After a lot of work the pond was restored. This was pretty far out in the country so I'm not sure about any regulations involved.

[KeithKSR]

It's not about water for the EPA it's about control.

[bigsky]

Heck, a rain barrel affects the natural flow of water

[Doc]

This is the type of thing that I worry about concerning the government where it's rule by regulation rather than rule by law. The same will be done with healthcare, and anything else that the citizens allow over regulation where one side wants to force their beliefs on the other.

[Darrell KSR]

Darrell, when the local NRCS and the state engineers office okayed the pond construction, the EPA should stay out of the state's business unless they can show that there was intent to break the law. The NRCS is charged, by the USDA, to control land use in the region. They do not take their job lightly. Ponds, levees, terraces, etc all impact the natural flow of water, so do highways, houses, railways, and just to mention another one, artificial turf on football fields.

The EPA is overstepping their authority when they choose to ignore local authority from another federal department in a spurious effort to make a case over a small creek that eventually flows into a navigable stream which is 100 miles away.

Once the pond is full of water, the natural flow of water returns

Dan, the EPA can't ignore issues.

Let's not confuse whether or not they are correct, which is a separate matter, from the underlying responsibility. As I said, they may be wrong based upon what the landowner indicates. However, if the landowner is wrong, he is wrong, and hopefully the state did not screw up. I am not here to argue about whether the natural flow is diverted or not, or whether time or other remedies exist to address it.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[jazyd]

This is the type of thing that I worry about concerning the government where it's rule by regulation rather than rule by law. The same will be done with healthcare, and anything else that the citizens allow over regulation where one side wants to force their beliefs on the other.

Me also Doc. In this case it is another power grab. It reminds me of the church we used to belong to. I told friends the members were like the citizens of this country. I don't care what you do during the week, just make me happy on Sunday. Well the citizens dont' seem very concerned and when they finally do it will be too late I am afraid of. Of course it would help if ALL the media would cover these things instead of a select few.

This administration is hell bent on taking ever right we have away from us and the hell with the constitution or the law. I hope a republican wins the president and does away with the EPA as we know it. But then again he would need help from congress and the idiots we have there that claim to be republicans might as well be democrats because they rule in the same manner.

[CitizenBBN]

Dan, the EPA can't ignore issues.

Let's not confuse whether or not they are correct, which is a separate matter, from the underlying responsibility. As I said, they may be wrong based upon what the landowner indicates. However, if the landowner is wrong, he is wrong, and hopefully the state did not screw up. I am not here to argue about whether the natural flow is diverted or not, or whether time or other remedies exist to address it.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

They can ignore those that are not part of their legal obligation as charged by Congress. it's not even clear the EPA has federal authority over something like this as the Clean Water Act addressed waterways that had "significant nexus" to "navigable waters" and this isn't that, but the EPA has been expanding their mission far beyond the original intent. They're fining this guy for a pond that's 100 miles from the nearest waterway a canoe can call navigable. That's "significant nexus"?

They didn't address these things for decades, and the CWA has been in effect since 1972. This is nothing more than massive mission creep by a federal bureaucracy. They were never charged with making sure there is no pollution or protecting every drop of water in the country. They were there to deal with issues that rose to the federal level, thus the built in restriction to navigable waterways. They were never supposed to be overseeing and regulating every pond every farmer might put in a field somewhere.

And they haven't afaik even charged him with actually polluting anything. They simply didn't like the "diversion", and there is no diversion once the pond is full, and wanted him to comply. They haven't said he's dumping waste or even that his livestock is causing a problem b/c of the pond itself.

The EPA was never supposed to have the authority to even act on something this mundane and common. It shouldn't even rise to the level of any kind of federal action or involvement. The state is more than capable of managing any such process, and they issued a permit and said what he was doing was fine. there is no need for the EPA to then come in and say to both this rancher an the state that they have the final say over a pond that's 100 miles from their jurisdiction.

The EPA can't ignore issues that are within their legal charge to address, but what we have here is an agency that is completely corrupted by the environmental movement using their power to implement an agenda that was never the goal of Congress nor the law they enacted to govern water pollution.

The law was structured specifically to avoid this kind of federal intrusion and oversight, not that the EPA cares. Heck, they dont' even care if the guy is actually hurting water quality in some way or causing pollution. They just care that some uppity human disturbed the natural landscape in some way.

[UKHistory]

If the landowner got his permits from the state and local authority, I can't see how he can get fined. But that is my perspective.

Theoretically if state law has to comply with federal law then the state should have been able to verify all was OK with the creation of the pond.

Darrell, when the local NRCS and the state engineers office okayed the pond construction, the EPA should stay out of the state's business unless they can show that there was intent to break the law. The NRCS is charged, by the USDA, to control land use in the region. They do not take their job lightly. Ponds, levees, terraces, etc all impact the natural flow of water, so do highways, houses, railways, and just to mention another one, artificial turf on football fields.

The EPA is overstepping their authority when they choose to ignore local authority from another federal department in a spurious effort to make a case over a small creek that eventually flows into a navigable stream which is 100 miles away.

Once the pond is full of water, the natural flow of water returns

[Darrell KSR]

Again, that's a different argument. If the argument is the EPA isn't constitutionally empowered to address navigable waterways, or it was an improper delegation, or that while empowered, this was an impermissible extension of that power, fine. What I'm insistent upon is this indefensible notion that a landowner is permitted to do whatever he wishes because it is his property. Assuming the EPA is empowered (again, a different argument), then they cannot ignore the duties they are charged with performing because a state agency screwed up (if it did).

It's a narrow argument, but a critical one, in my view.

They can ignore those that are not part of their legal obligation as charged by Congress. it's not even clear the EPA has federal authority over something like this as the Clean Water Act addressed waterways that had "significant nexus" to "navigable waters" and this isn't that, but the EPA has been expanding their mission far beyond the original intent. They're fining this guy for a pond that's 100 miles from the nearest waterway a canoe can call navigable. That's "significant nexus"? .

[KeithKSR]

Again, that's a different argument. If the argument is the EPA isn't constitutionally empowered to address navigable waterways, or it was an improper delegation, or that while empowered, this was an impermissible extension of that power, fine. What I'm insistent upon is this indefensible notion that a landowner is permitted to do whatever he wishes because it is his property. Assuming the EPA is empowered (again, a different argument), then they cannot ignore the duties they are charged with performing because a state agency screwed up (if it did).

It's a narrow argument, but a critical one, in my view.

Haven't current Court rulings indicated the EPA was in the wrong, yet they continue to attempt strong arm tactics?

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...?intcmp=hplnws

[KSRBEvans]

Of the many bad things Richard Nixon did, proposing the EPA has to be in the top 10, if not top 5.

[CitizenBBN]

Of the many bad things Richard Nixon did, proposing the EPA has to be in the top 10, if not top 5.

Probably #3 for the Nixon Administration, behind only Watergate and going off the gold standard.

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...?intcmp=hplnws

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/13...?intcmp=hplnws

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...?intcmp=hplnws

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...?intcmp=hplnws

[KeithKSR]

The EPA is evil.

[dan_bgblue]

How much will your electric bill go up, and how much will the increases in energy prices raise the cost of everything you buy?


Thanks EPA

[dan_bgblue]

Wyoming welder, facing $16M in fines, beats EPA in battle over stock pond

[KentuckyWildcat]

Summarize this for me. I thought about doing a pond in a few years. Should I or not?

[CitizenBBN]

Glad you posted this Dan. I saw the article but couldn't find this thread, didn't want to start a new one and hoped you'd bump it.

EPA seems to have completely capitulated. I'm surprised.

Not that they had ANY legal authority whatsoever. SCOTUS itself has said their purview ends with waterways with significant impact on navigable waterways (which was the Clean Water Act standard), which this little creek was NOT, and stock ponds are specifically excluded by statute.

They had no authority, thought they'd just bully this guy around. Fortunately there are some legal groups out there willing to defend these victims, and they clearly did their job well.

[CitizenBBN]

Summarize this for me. I thought about doing a pond in a few years. Should I or not?

Just don't tell the EPA and you'll be fine.

I'd like to see them try to enforce that stuff around here. My uncles rebuilt a junked bulldozer just to be able to construct their own ponds as needed, and have done so as has every other farmer I know.

[Doc]

Just don't tell the EPA and you'll be fine.

I'd like to see them try to enforce that stuff around here. My uncles rebuilt a junked bulldozer just to be able to construct their own ponds as needed, and have done so as has every other farmer I know.

Actually, thats not exactly correct. Better way to do it is register democrat, run for office then you can do whatever the hell you want.

[CitizenBBN]

Actually, thats not exactly correct. Better way to do it is register democrat, run for office then you can do whatever the hell you want.

lol, no argument there.

I'm going to post a link to a story coming out from a Wall Street analyst who is documenting the materially significant problems with the Clinton Foundation and how it's basically a giant money laundering scheme.

I have no doubt that it's a huge ethics failure. At best it's a giant financial log rolling scheme that enriches the Clintons indirectly through a multi step process, but it won't surprise me one tiny bit to find out that an organization run from top to bottom with long time Clinton cronies, most of them from Arkansas, is full of outright criminal theft.

Just imagine if Bush had a 2 billion dollar foundation rife with foreign donations, many of which we know were wrongly not reported, fill to the brim with family friends and supporters, getting huge checks from people with foreign business deals before the administration. The media would be losing their minds, they'd be cancelling prime time TV on NBC to run 3 hour specials on it.

[dan_bgblue]

Didn't Bill sell San Diego to the Chinese when he was in office and someone in the media traced a huge donation to the Clinton reelection campaign to China?