EPA gone wild!

[masterrig 1]

This just doesn't make sense.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/14/wyoming-welder-faces-fine-for-building-pond-on-his-own-property/


Chuck

[StreetScooby 5]

The EPA has absolutely gone out of control. It is ludicrous what they are doing, and they must be bought to heel. I watched the confirmation hearing of the new EPA head. I was utterly appalled by what I saw. This is broken, and broken badly.

We are all engines of karma

[masterrig 1]

I can understand taking care of our land and water but the way the EPA, BLM and others are going about it, makes no sense. Using intimidation and out and out gestapo tactics does not coincide with our Constitution or Bill of Rights or basic common sense. I guess, we can thank our president for making those department head appointments.




Chuck

[quade 3]

masterrig

This just doesn't make sense.

It's on FoxNews. It doesn't have to make sense. That's not its purpose. Its purpose isn't to tell you the whole story. Its purpose is to incite your emotions against the EPA.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

It's on FoxNews. It doesn't have to make sense. That's not its purpose. Its purpose isn't to tell you the whole story. Its purpose is to incite your emotions against the EPA.

quade, not sure how to say this nicely, and I may get banned, but get your head out of your a-- on this one. The EPA is completely and utterly out of control. Good thing you live in southern California, because when they finish shutting down the coal industry, you won't be cold in the winter.

We are all engines of karma

[quade 3]

StreetScooby

quade, not sure how to say this nicely, and I may get banned, but get your head out of your a-- on this one.

Really? Read it again. We have in great detail the outrage of the allegedly wronged individual, we have a reported supposed letter from a US Senator, but not the actual verbiage. We do not have a statement from an actual individual from the EPA.

The entire argument seems to stem from the definition of stock pond vs dam.

If the (let's call it an "item" since neither you nor I know which it actually is) item is a stock pond then the article might have some merit. On the other hand, if the item was build in such a way as to restrict the natural drainage of the area, then it is, in fact, a dam.

LOVE this statement from the dude in question:

Quote

“It’s about a person’s rights. I have three little kids. I am not going to roll over and let [the government] tell me what I can do on my land. I followed the rules.”

Well, not actually. "A person's rights" do not supersede the rights of people downstream. I'm not exactly sure WTF having three kids has to do with it. "A person's rights" might give him control over his property, but not the water rights flowing through it. And finally, just because "a person" has followed local laws doesn't mean there aren't greater laws that also apply. Local permits get screwed up all the time because they don't take into account federal laws.

BUT does the article explain any of that? No.

Again, that's not the purpose of Fox News and it never has been.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Really? Read it again.

I'm not banned! YEAH! Thank you.

Quote

The entire argument seems to stem from the definition of stock pond vs dam.

Exactly. IMO, liberal law makers are passing large bills that become law, and NOBODY knows what it really means. Even worse, they are taking liberty with existing laws and "playing with words". The intent is to get it in front of a liberal judge who will lift the "blindfold", use their "wisdom", and set some kind of precedent where stare decisis takes effect.

Quote

(let's call it an "item" since neither you nor I know which it actually is)

QED...

Quote

"A person's rights" do not supersede the rights of people downstream.

You have proven to me more than once that you think about things, in your own way. It's still not clear to me what your take on private property is. Can you clarify that, for all of us, please?

We are all engines of karma

[kelpdiver 2]

StreetScooby

Quote

It's on FoxNews. It doesn't have to make sense. That's not its purpose. Its purpose isn't to tell you the whole story. Its purpose is to incite your emotions against the EPA.

quade, not sure how to say this nicely, and I may get banned, but get your head out of your a-- on this one. The EPA is completely and utterly out of control. Good thing you live in southern California, because when they finish shutting down the coal industry, you won't be cold in the winter.

Are you claiming that Fox does not actually distort presentation of facts of an incident for political reasons? If so, then it's your head that's stuck somewhere. And that was his primary point there.

When I see an outage being promoted by Fox, that prompts me to look for validation from other sources, ones that don't have their agenda. And then I take it at face value.

Fortunately for the citizens, this is happening in Wyoming, a state so unpopulated that a man can get pretty good attention from his Congressional Members. If the EPA overreached, he'll likely get a suitable outcome. But if he dammed up the river and is dumping pollutants downstream, then fuck him and his 3 kids.

[quade 3]

Quote

It's still not clear to me what your take on private property is. Can you clarify that, for all of us, please?

Primer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_right

Essentially and as a general concept there are things that belong to a person and things that don't. Just because water travels over your property doesn't mean you own it and can restrict its flow downstream.

Let's say there were three pieces of property; one owned by a guy upstream of you, yours, and another owned by a guy downstream of yours.

Let's say you want to install a little pond in your back yard and decide to dam up the stream so it makes a nice pond. Sure, you're fucking the guy downstream of you, but you're just doing what you believe is your "right" on your property.

Or are you?

What happens when the guy upstream of you decides to do the same thing?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,400]

If he built a stock pond and filled it with his own water or rainwater, then yes, the EPA has gone too far.

If he dammed or diverted a stream that other people/ecosystems downstream depend on, then the EPA is right on target, and are doing their jobs.

[masterrig 1]

quade

***This just doesn't make sense.

It's on FoxNews. It doesn't have to make sense. That's not its purpose. Its purpose isn't to tell you the whole story. Its purpose is to incite your emotions against the EPA.

I didn't figure you'd like that source. Do a search and take your pick. The pond is not fed by the near-by stream. They may have diverted the stream to fill it but 'put it back' when they were done. That 'tank', as we call them here in Texas, if it has a good bottom, rain water will keep it full. Also, the wildlife around utilize that tank so what's the beef with the EPA? They're trying to tell people what they can and cannot do with their property. Wrong answer! Every ranch in the state of Texas has similar stock tanks... maintained by water wells and not in any way going to harm the water ways. I think the EPA is going too far. Some desk jockey with a little power gone to his head.


Chuck

[chutem 0]

billvon

If he built a stock pond and filled it with his own water or rainwater, then yes, the EPA has gone too far.

If he dammed or diverted a stream that other people/ecosystems downstream depend on, then the EPA is right on target, and are doing their jobs.

Can't do it with rain water in many places.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/oregon-man-sentenced-30-days-jail-collecting-rainwater-his-property

[masterrig 1]

billvon

If he built a stock pond and filled it with his own water or rainwater, then yes, the EPA has gone too far.

If he dammed or diverted a stream that other people/ecosystems downstream depend on, then the EPA is right on target, and are doing their jobs.

As I understand it, he filled the pond with stream water then 'put it back' the way it was. From here on out, if the tank has a good bottom, rain will keep it full. I've seen nothing that says he diverted the stream and didn't put it back. Also, that stream water is his too, just like other folks along it. I'm sure too, the shit-storm he'd start by cutting water off to those folks down-stream. that's a damned good way to start a war!


Chuck

[billvon 2,400]

>As I understand it, he filled the pond with stream water then 'put it back' the way
>it was. From here on out, if the tank has a good bottom, rain will keep it full.

Hmm. If that's the case, he could have just waited for the rain to fill it to begin with.

But in any case, if all he did was pump some water out of the stream, then while you MIGHT be able to fine him for using water without a take permit, but nothing like the current action.

> I've seen nothing that says he diverted the stream and didn't put it back.

That's the issue I guess. If he diverted the stream without a legal claim to the water rights then I can see this action. If not then the EPA is going way overboard.

>Also, that stream water is his too, just like other folks along it.

That's the problem in many places. People saying "that water is mine" while people (and ecosystems below) disagree.

[wmw999 2,122]

Here is an article that appears to have some actual information in it, rather than just hyperbole.

From the article, it sounds like he tried to go by the book, but didn't know (and no one mentioned that he should find out) that there were two books to go by; the state book, and the federal book.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[masterrig 1]

billvon

>As I understand it, he filled the pond with stream water then 'put it back' the way
>it was. From here on out, if the tank has a good bottom, rain will keep it full.

Hmm. If that's the case, he could have just waited for the rain to fill it to begin with.

But in any case, if all he did was pump some water out of the stream, then while you MIGHT be able to fine him for using water without a take permit, but nothing like the current action.

> I've seen nothing that says he diverted the stream and didn't put it back.

That's the issue I guess. If he diverted the stream without a legal claim to the water rights then I can see this action. If not then the EPA is going way overboard.

>Also, that stream water is his too, just like other folks along it.

That's the problem in many places. People saying "that water is mine" while people (and ecosystems below) disagree.

From the pictures I've seen of the man's tank, I could not see where that stream feeds that tank. He probably pumped water from the stream which is what others along the way do for the same purpose or irrigation. Bottom line, that stream is still running, ducks swim in it an the man's tank. Things like this happen all the west, all the time for over 100-yrs. and the eco system has survived.


Chuck

[wmw999 2,122]

Somewhere in between damming a stream for a stock tank, and the Rio Grande and Colorado running dry before reaching the ocean (or nearly so) there's a line. We don't know exactly where it is.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[masterrig 1]

True story.


Chuck

[Amazon 7]

masterrig

True story.


Chuck

I would think with the widespread drought conditions across so much of the country.... there will be even more water rights fights a comin.

[wmw999 2,122]

That is a very safe bet.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Amazon 7]

wmw999

That is a very safe bet.

Wendy P.

Not to worry... several large corporations are preparing to sell you all the water you might need... at the appropriate price point.

[masterrig 1]

Amazon

***True story.


Chuck

I would think with the widespread drought conditions across so much of the country.... there will be even more water rights fights a comin.

I believe you're right! The last moisture we've had was March 16. We got 3-1/2 inches. Before that we got 1/2 inch of rain in late September. Since the snow in March... nothin'! Lakes here in Texas are several lakes are several feet low. That's just Texas. Other western states are in similar shape. Meanwhile, water wells are dryin' up. Water is becoming a scarce commodity. 'Wars' have been waged over water. I'd hate to see history repeat itself.


Chuck

[Amazon 7]

masterrig

******True story.


Chuck

I would think with the widespread drought conditions across so much of the country.... there will be even more water rights fights a comin.

I believe you're right! The last moisture we've had was March 16. We got 3-1/2 inches. Before that we got 1/2 inch of rain in late September. Since the snow in March... nothin'! Lakes here in Texas are several lakes are several feet low. That's just Texas. Other western states are in similar shape. Meanwhile, water wells are dryin' up. Water is becoming a scarce commodity. 'Wars' have been waged over water. I'd hate to see history repeat itself.


Chuck

The Seattle Area set an all time amount of rain last month at almost 10"
Here at my place in the foothills not far from where the monster landslide took out a whole community... its far higher. We had a windstorm back in mid Feb that blew the clear vinyl top off my Costco 10x20'Tent greenhouse and that let the rain accumulate in the 55 gallon aquarium I had in there. I had cleaned it out last fall and it was completely dry. With that month of rain... it completely filled the 2'deep tank to overflowing.
No drought here this year... and no deposits with oil or gas for them to frack and destroy the groundwater either.

[quade 3]

Amazon

***That is a very safe bet.
Wendy P.

Not to worry... several large corporations are preparing to sell you all the water you might need... at the appropriate price point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEFL8ElXHaU

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wmw999 2,122]

Quote

Lakes here in Texas are several lakes are several feet low.

Lake Travis is over 50 feet low. Here's a site that shows the levels of over 200 lakes across the country.

Some of these are transient levels. But where people depend on them, either for irrigation or drinking, some of the levels are scary.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)