EPA gone wild!

[PiLFy 0]

Quote

All government groups have opposing groups of whackos (sometimes carrying guns for extra bravado) who will show up to protest just about anything.

This was far from just any ole protest. It was a line in the sand, & a long time coming. The Feds knew they could kiss it all goodbye if they crossed it.

Quote

***So, yes, it's prudent for the government to also show up armed when confronting a dude who is in arrears in his taxes by a million dollars.

Yes, it's always prudent for robbers to be heavily armed...

Quote

I can almost assure you the first contact and option by the government in this case was not to show up armed. They've been sending letters systematically forcing all his neighbor ranchers out of business, & stealing their lands for 20 years.

FIFY. The militia members are Patriots. Your clueless Berkley views don't negate that fact one iota.

[wmw999 2,121]

In the trib.com article linked above, it says

Quote

When he was done building the pond, he closed the valve of the drain. Now the water flows out of the pond like a spillway, he said.

It really does sound like he tried to do the right thing by contacting the state and getting that permit. I can totally see where he thought that was enough (I have lakeside property, and dealt with wetlands regulations -- it's a zoo out there). And yes, it sounds like a really tiny stream, and a disproportionate ruling. If the gummint doesn't go talk to them, they need to talk to the gummint themselves. If nothing else, if the gummint sends someone out to every applicant, administration costs go WAY, WAY up. Which means more taxes.

Yeah, it sucks. So do automated phone inquiries (ATT is the worst). But they're a part of life now. Individuals pay more one at a time for their own causes, so that the gummint doesn't absorb as much of it on behalf of us all.

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]

Seems to me, the EPA could avoid some problems if they would keep state informed so the states could keep-up.
Also, which 'article above' are you referring to?

Mind you, I am very much in favor of protecting our land and resources but all I would like to see is some sensibility from government agencies. I doubt that's going to happen!!


Chuck

[billvon 2,397]

>Seems to me, the EPA could avoid some problems if they would keep state
>informed so the states could keep-up.

As far as I can tell - they did. The states work pretty closely with the EPA when it comes to waterway maintenance. The state has no requirement to tell you you have to get EPA approval, just as your state doesn't call you when you file your state taxes and tell you "you know, you have to pay federal taxes too." It might be a nice thing for them to do, and perhaps after this incident they will start doing this.

The EPA even contacted the homeowner several times BEFORE all this stuff started. They first contacted him in September of 2012 asking him about all the construction. He didn't respond. In October they contacted him again, telling him he needed a permit if he was doing what it looked like he was doing. He didn't respond.

In February 2013 they finally sent him a "cease and desist" letter. In May they inspected the place and found a 40 foot long dam. Still nothing from him.

In January 2014 they sent the final letter (shown below) where they said he has 30 days to remove the dam and start restoring the site. He also ignored that.

Then the fines started.

So if FOX is giving the impression that this guy did everything right and was completely unaware of any problems until he got a $75,000 file slapped on him. As you said in your first post, "this just doesn't make sense." I think it makes a little more sense when you know the history of the issue; it's been going on for over a year now.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=b5d11bd4-7c08-4ecb-8c2f-6fd819ca9be7

[masterrig 1]

wmw999

In the trib.com article linked above, it says

Quote

When he was done building the pond, he closed the valve of the drain. Now the water flows out of the pond like a spillway, he said.

It really does sound like he tried to do the right thing by contacting the state and getting that permit. I can totally see where he thought that was enough (I have lakeside property, and dealt with wetlands regulations -- it's a zoo out there). And yes, it sounds like a really tiny stream, and a disproportionate ruling. If the gummint doesn't go talk to them, they need to talk to the gummint themselves. If nothing else, if the gummint sends someone out to every applicant, administration costs go WAY, WAY up. Which means more taxes.

Yeah, it sucks. So do automated phone inquiries (ATT is the worst). But they're a part of life now. Individuals pay more one at a time for their own causes, so that the gummint doesn't absorb as much of it on behalf of us all.

Wendy P.

There is a creek (seasonal) runs along the southern boundary of our property) that eventually feeds into a larger creek that runs into the Rio Grande. This creek, because of it's course, is controlled by the Feds. If, dead trees or boulders should block the course of the creek and someone wants to clear the obstruction to keep a home from being flooded in the (rare) event the creek floods... the feds have to be contacted!
Makes about as much since as getting castrated because your neighbor has too many kids!


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

I really appreciate your posting that. I don't know where you found it but it does shine light on the matter.


Chuck

[Amazon 7]

masterrig

Probably not but the BLM, like I said, could have done it face to face, man to man, instead of some feather-legged letter. All letters of that kind do is piss people off and builds animosity. Besides, just what is wrong with an adult face to face meeting? Seems to me that it could lead to better relations and understanding on both sides. What do you think?


Chuck

Chuck.. the BLM thing is just another overreach by that Kenyan Socialist right???

[masterrig 1]

Amazon

***Probably not but the BLM, like I said, could have done it face to face, man to man, instead of some feather-legged letter. All letters of that kind do is piss people off and builds animosity. Besides, just what is wrong with an adult face to face meeting? Seems to me that it could lead to better relations and understanding on both sides. What do you think?


Chuck

Chuck.. the BLM thing is just another overreach by that Kenyan Socialist right???

Could be. I'm not too fond of him, I'll put it that way.


Chuck

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

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.

I rarely watch TV, and most certainly don't watch news on TV.
FYI,

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Or are you?

We need to get you to Egypt ASAP. Sounds like you've figured this out.

We are all engines of karma

[rushmc 18]

masterrig

***In the trib.com article linked above, it says

Quote

When he was done building the pond, he closed the valve of the drain. Now the water flows out of the pond like a spillway, he said.

It really does sound like he tried to do the right thing by contacting the state and getting that permit. I can totally see where he thought that was enough (I have lakeside property, and dealt with wetlands regulations -- it's a zoo out there). And yes, it sounds like a really tiny stream, and a disproportionate ruling. If the gummint doesn't go talk to them, they need to talk to the gummint themselves. If nothing else, if the gummint sends someone out to every applicant, administration costs go WAY, WAY up. Which means more taxes.

Yeah, it sucks. So do automated phone inquiries (ATT is the worst). But they're a part of life now. Individuals pay more one at a time for their own causes, so that the gummint doesn't absorb as much of it on behalf of us all.

Wendy P.

There is a creek (seasonal) runs along the southern boundary of our property) that eventually feeds into a larger creek that runs into the Rio Grande. This creek, because of it's course, is controlled by the Feds. If, dead trees or boulders should block the course of the creek and someone wants to clear the obstruction to keep a home from being flooded in the (rare) event the creek floods... the feds have to be contacted!
Makes about as much since as getting castrated because your neighbor has too many kids!


Chuck


the EPA has a propsed rule out there now that would give the EPA power over a mud puddle in the middle of your field
They are making the claim that these would be poluted waters
BIG fight going on over that here right now

Yes, the EPA is a radical organization
Much like todays IRS

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterrig 1]

rushmc

******In the trib.com article linked above, it says

Quote

When he was done building the pond, he closed the valve of the drain. Now the water flows out of the pond like a spillway, he said.

It really does sound like he tried to do the right thing by contacting the state and getting that permit. I can totally see where he thought that was enough (I have lakeside property, and dealt with wetlands regulations -- it's a zoo out there). And yes, it sounds like a really tiny stream, and a disproportionate ruling. If the gummint doesn't go talk to them, they need to talk to the gummint themselves. If nothing else, if the gummint sends someone out to every applicant, administration costs go WAY, WAY up. Which means more taxes.

Yeah, it sucks. So do automated phone inquiries (ATT is the worst). But they're a part of life now. Individuals pay more one at a time for their own causes, so that the gummint doesn't absorb as much of it on behalf of us all.

Wendy P.

There is a creek (seasonal) runs along the southern boundary of our property) that eventually feeds into a larger creek that runs into the Rio Grande. This creek, because of it's course, is controlled by the Feds. If, dead trees or boulders should block the course of the creek and someone wants to clear the obstruction to keep a home from being flooded in the (rare) event the creek floods... the feds have to be contacted!
Makes about as much since as getting castrated because your neighbor has too many kids!


Chuck


the EPA has a propsed rule out there now that would give the EPA power over a mud puddle in the middle of your field
They are making the claim that these would be poluted waters
BIG fight going on over that here right now

Yes, the EPA is a radical organization
Much like todays IRS

After reading your post, I'm of the opinion, this whole thing is about power and control and money. I'm seeing some bullying along the way too. I can respect that welder in Wyoming and that rancher in Nevada for standing-up. Just because it's the government, doesn't make it right. Isn't that what America is all about? Standing-up for your beliefs? Those cowboys and even the various militia groups supporting one man... that's America! Things would've been a lot different if a few men hadn't stood-up to the British back in the 17 hundreds. Those men didn't agree with the oppression and bullying, they stood-up. You gotta respect that.


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

billvon

>Seems to me, the EPA could avoid some problems if they would keep state
>informed so the states could keep-up.

As far as I can tell - they did. The states work pretty closely with the EPA when it comes to waterway maintenance. The state has no requirement to tell you you have to get EPA approval, just as your state doesn't call you when you file your state taxes and tell you "you know, you have to pay federal taxes too." It might be a nice thing for them to do, and perhaps after this incident they will start doing this.

The EPA even contacted the homeowner several times BEFORE all this stuff started. They first contacted him in September of 2012 asking him about all the construction. He didn't respond. In October they contacted him again, telling him he needed a permit if he was doing what it looked like he was doing. He didn't respond.

In February 2013 they finally sent him a "cease and desist" letter. In May they inspected the place and found a 40 foot long dam. Still nothing from him.

In January 2014 they sent the final letter (shown below) where they said he has 30 days to remove the dam and start restoring the site. He also ignored that.

Then the fines started.

So if FOX is giving the impression that this guy did everything right and was completely unaware of any problems until he got a $75,000 file slapped on him. As you said in your first post, "this just doesn't make sense." I think it makes a little more sense when you know the history of the issue; it's been going on for over a year now.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=b5d11bd4-7c08-4ecb-8c2f-6fd819ca9be7

I read all ten pages of the report and the way I see it, the guy tried to do things in accordance with the State of Wyoming. The EPA dis-agreed. My opinion is, the EPA is just flexing it's muscles and being bullies. I know of a local greenhouse operation here in rural West Texas that uses chemicals to grow their tomatoes and the waste water is poured out on the ground. Some of those chemicals can be used to make bombs. That operation is part of a large corporation with greenhouses in other states, Mexico and Canada. The EPA never comes near that place! Instead, they threaten and fine a single land owner trying to follow the rules. I respect that land owner for standing up for his beliefs. You and others may think he's wrong and should buckle under to a big government agency. Instead, he's standing-up. Isn't that what we are supposed to do? Just because they are a government agency doesn't make them right.


Chuck

[wmw999 2,121]

Are there chemicals that you wouldn't be OK with his pouring out on his own land?

What if it's over the water table? Does the list change?

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]

No, I wouldn't be OK with that and harmful is harmful and the list wouldn't change. Harmful chemicals getting into the water shed is never good.


Chuck

[Boogers 0]

wmw999

In the trib.com article linked above, it says

Quote

When he was done building the pond, he closed the valve of the drain. Now the water flows out of the pond like a spillway, he said.

Thanks for adding that, wmw. People seemed to be believing here that if you build a dam that it cuts off the water flow completely below the dam. Not so. It only cuts off the water flow until the pond behind the dam fills up. At that point, it overflows and continues to feed downstream at the same rate as before. Just like a beaver dam. All it does is create a pond, but the water continues to flow. The downstream affect is very temporary.

[inline HooverDamWater.jpg]

[Amazon 7]

Boogers

***In the trib.com article linked above, it says

Quote

When he was done building the pond, he closed the valve of the drain. Now the water flows out of the pond like a spillway, he said.

Thanks for adding that, wmw. People seemed to be believing here that if you build a dam that it cuts off the water flow completely below the dam. Not so. It only cuts off the water flow until the pond behind the dam fills up. At that point, it overflows and continues to feed downstream at the same rate as before. Just like a beaver dam. All it does is create a pond, but the water continues to flow. The downstream affect is very temporary.



How is the fish migration up that stream doing.... Salmon runs ceased to exist behind Grand Coulee Dam within a couple years after its construction.

That is one of the reasons fish stocks are just fractions of what they once were.. dams.

[masterrig 1]

Amazon

******In the trib.com article linked above, it says

Quote

When he was done building the pond, he closed the valve of the drain. Now the water flows out of the pond like a spillway, he said.

Thanks for adding that, wmw. People seemed to be believing here that if you build a dam that it cuts off the water flow completely below the dam. Not so. It only cuts off the water flow until the pond behind the dam fills up. At that point, it overflows and continues to feed downstream at the same rate as before. Just like a beaver dam. All it does is create a pond, but the water continues to flow. The downstream affect is very temporary.



How is the fish migration up that stream doing.... Salmon runs ceased to exist behind Grand Coulee Dam within a couple years after its construction.

That is one of the reasons fish stocks are just fractions of what they once were.. dams.

It's OK... the government did it!


Chuck

[billvon 2,397]

>Thanks for adding that, wmw. People seemed to be believing here that if you
>build a dam that it cuts off the water flow completely below the dam. Not so. It
>only cuts off the water flow until the pond behind the dam fills up.

That's how all dams work.

> All it does is create a pond, but the water continues to flow. The downstream
>affect is very temporary.

So you think a dam has only a temporary effect on the watershed (until the dam fills up) and after that it's back to the way it was before?

It is because of that sort of mistaken belief that we need organizations like the EPA - so that ignorant people don't build dams and damage important watersheds.

[billvon 2,397]

>I read all ten pages of the report and the way I see it, the guy tried to do things
>in accordance with the State of Wyoming. The EPA dis-agreed.

Yes. Imagine if you tried to pay your taxes with accordance with your state government and refused to pay your Federal income taxes, then said "I paid every dime I owed the state! I did nothing wrong."

> My opinion is, the EPA is just flexing it's muscles and being bullies.

My opinion is we are dealing with two idiots.

The first idiot (the EPA) is making a mountain out of a molehill; there are much better ways to handle this, like going through the courts and eventually taking over the lake, restoring it then giving it back to the guy.

The second idiot (this guy) got the first letter and ignored it. "Too much work, maybe they will go away." Then he got the second letter and tossed it too. "Stupid fuckers, I'm going to ignore them." Then he got the third letter and started hearing about possible fines. And instead of fixing the problem, he decided to go to the papers to shirk responsibility for what he did.

[masterrig 1]

billvon

>I read all ten pages of the report and the way I see it, the guy tried to do things
>in accordance with the State of Wyoming. The EPA dis-agreed.

Yes. Imagine if you tried to pay your taxes with accordance with your state government and refused to pay your Federal income taxes, then said "I paid every dime I owed the state! I did nothing wrong."

> My opinion is, the EPA is just flexing it's muscles and being bullies.

My opinion is we are dealing with two idiots.

The first idiot (the EPA) is making a mountain out of a molehill; there are much better ways to handle this, like going through the courts and eventually taking over the lake, restoring it then giving it back to the guy.

The second idiot (this guy) got the first letter and ignored it. "Too much work, maybe they will go away." Then he got the second letter and tossed it too. "Stupid fuckers, I'm going to ignore them." Then he got the third letter and started hearing about possible fines. And instead of fixing the problem, he decided to go to the papers to shirk responsibility for what he did.

Meanwhile, good sense went out the window on both sides.
Paying taxes and building a stock tank are two different things. Everyone knows you pay taxes and the consequences if you don't. I am of the impression that the guy in this case, went through the channels, county, state and never imagined that the EPA would get their panties in a wad over a 'stock tank'. I can see having an agency to protect our water ways and streams but I think too, the EPA goes a tad over-board with their power. In a year's time, how much damage has resulted from that man building that tank? How many fish have died or homes been flooded? How much erosion has destroyed the surrounding areas? How many fences have been washed away or any other hazardous thing? Can the EPA prove future damage to the environment? Then too, how many critters have gained from that tank? Water fowl have a stop-off on their way south, deer, rabbits and others can get a drink. I think the EPA is just being 'feather-legged'.


Chuck

[PiLFy 0]

"I think the EPA is just being 'feather-legged'."

Feather-legged? Is that like Chickenshit?

[kelpdiver 2]

masterrig

In a year's time, how much damage has resulted from that man building that tank? How many fish have died or homes been flooded? How much erosion has destroyed the surrounding areas? How many fences have been washed away or any other hazardous thing?

you want to wait until a house is swept away before worrying about it?

Regulations like building codes are meant to be prescriptive, to prevent problems before they occur. Quite often they're written in a reactive manner, after bad things have occurred. But at that point, you don't continue to way for mayhem before you enforce them.

[kelpdiver 2]

Boogers

People seemed to be believing here that if you build a dam that it cuts off the water flow completely below the dam. Not so. It only cuts off the water flow until the pond behind the dam fills up. At that point, it overflows and continues to feed downstream at the same rate as before. Just like a beaver dam. All it does is create a pond, but the water continues to flow. The downstream affect is very temporary.

To rewrite what you said, it doesn't cut off water flow completely, except when it's filling up the pond. And any time it drops below the height of the dam. (like any period of drought)

[masterrig 1]

PiLFy

"I think the EPA is just being 'feather-legged'."

Feather-legged? Is that like Chickenshit?

Just a polite way of saying it.


Chuck