0
masterrig

EPA gone wild!

Recommended Posts

kelpdiver

*** 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?

(I can understand that. You have to keep in mind... it's a 'stock tank'! It's not Lake Superior. It's not the Missouri River. What I'm saying is, I feel the EPA has just gone over-board about this. They can't prove ill effects of that stock tank or the way it was built. What really gets me is, so many farmers and ranchers and other food producers GO TO various agencies and extension services to get ideas to help, save or improve their farm land, grazing pastures, woodlands and so-on, so as to benefit the eco system and raise better food products. So, the EPA has to pick on some little guy in Podunk, Wyoming who tried playing by the rules! It just doesn't make sense to me. We can 'what if' till we're blue in the face but where is the sense in all this? I realize, we need building codes, rules and regulations and so-on but good Lord, someone is just getting carried away with their 'power')

Chuck

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> Everyone knows you pay taxes and the consequences if you don't.

Right. And everyone who deals with hydropower (i.e. damming streams for power) knows you get approval from the EPA - and the consequences if you don't. It's usually pretty easy; a plan approval, an inspection when you are done and you're good.

He didn't know this. This probably wasn't anything malicious on his part; he was just ignorant of the system and didn't take the time to do the research. However, when he started ignoring letters from the EPA, he went from simple ignorance to willful ignorance, and that's why it became a problem.

If, when they had contacted him the first time, he said "OK what do I have to do to get approval?" he would now have his pond without all the hassle.

>I am of the impression that the guy in this case, went through the channels,
>county, state . . .

Right. Again, that's like saying you wanted to buy an airplane, and you got approval from your state, but never got a license and a registration from the FAA. You may not have known you needed to get a license from the FAA - but once they send you a letter telling you what you are doing is illegal, you better get one.

>n 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?

I don't know. How much damage will happen the next time that stream floods? What will the damage be to the structures downstream if the dam goes all at once? What will the effect be of losing the water downstream during times of drought? I don't know - and neither do you. Which is why there's an approval process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You also have to bear in mind that regulation must (or should) be applied equally to everyone. If you have no regulations at all, anyone could dam or pollute water that passes through their property, denying everyone downstream the use of that resource. In the past, and even still today, that has been the basis for some nasty "water wars". Also, everybody thinks their stream/wetland is just an insignificant piece of the whole landscape, yet if everybody fills in the wetlands or diverts the streams that cross their property, the cumulative effect is drastic changes in the ecology of the whole region. Only a few % of the wetlands that used to exist in this country are still in existence, despite the well-documented role of wetlands in acting as water purification filters as well as essential habitat for animals such as waterfowl.

Compared to water in running streams, water exiting reservoirs such as stock ponds is warmer, less oxygenated, and lacking in organic material such as insect larvae. A good way to kill a trout stream is to dam it; even if water continues to flow out a spillway, the water downstream will be too warm, and too poor in oxygen and nutrients, to support fish.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to have a process to evaluate changes to streams and other waterways for impacts on downstream users. If you say "well the regulations exist but we won't apply them to Bob" then you can't fairly apply them to Jane either, and then you're back to a situation where downstream users could have their water turned off, or rendered unusable, at any time and they would have no remedy.

People who regard the EPA as nothing more than jack-booted thugs should educate themselves about the state of the environment that lead to creation of the EPA and passage of laws governing clean water and air. Do you really believe that the progress that has been made towards cleaning up water and air pollution would have occurred without laws and enforcement to back it up? How many industries would spend money to clean up their wastes if the law permitted them to simply dump it in the river, as used to be the case?

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pffft.... who needs clean water for free anyway...

Nestle will be happy to sell you what they deem as safe drinkin water..

I can't believe those folks in West Virginny were given free water after that corporate pollution of a huge cities water supply... Just think how much money there was to be made.... for the rich people who own the state EPA's who are far more "compliant" with the needs of corporations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon

You also have to bear in mind that regulation must (or should) be applied equally to everyone. If you have no regulations at all, anyone could dam or pollute water that passes through their property, denying everyone downstream the use of that resource. In the past, and even still today, that has been the basis for some nasty "water wars". Also, everybody thinks their stream/wetland is just an insignificant piece of the whole landscape, yet if everybody fills in the wetlands or diverts the streams that cross their property, the cumulative effect is drastic changes in the ecology of the whole region. Only a few % of the wetlands that used to exist in this country are still in existence, despite the well-documented role of wetlands in acting as water purification filters as well as essential habitat for animals such as waterfowl.

Compared to water in running streams, water exiting reservoirs such as stock ponds is warmer, less oxygenated, and lacking in organic material such as insect larvae. A good way to kill a trout stream is to dam it; even if water continues to flow out a spillway, the water downstream will be too warm, and too poor in oxygen and nutrients, to support fish.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to have a process to evaluate changes to streams and other waterways for impacts on downstream users. If you say "well the regulations exist but we won't apply them to Bob" then you can't fairly apply them to Jane either, and then you're back to a situation where downstream users could have their water turned off, or rendered unusable, at any time and they would have no remedy.

People who regard the EPA as nothing more than jack-booted thugs should educate themselves about the state of the environment that lead to creation of the EPA and passage of laws governing clean water and air. Do you really believe that the progress that has been made towards cleaning up water and air pollution would have occurred without laws and enforcement to back it up? How many industries would spend money to clean up their wastes if the law permitted them to simply dump it in the river, as used to be the case?

Don



I've lived long enough to see the before and after changes in our environment from Texas to the Great Lakes, the Atlantic to the Pacific. I have never said that the EPA has not done good... they have! I've seen the sludge poured into the water ways from factories and the black smoke emitted from factory smoke stacks. I have said that I feel they have gotten a bit extreme in their zeal! Feather-legged as it were. I've seen the establishment of OSHA, too and how they have saved bodily extremities of farmers and factory workers. I also feel we need laws and restrictions or we'll have 'mob rule'. I'm no kid! All I have asked for is sense and sensibility in the use of power by the EPA.
When I wanted to have a water well drilled on our property, I went to the local Water Board, got an application, filled it out, filed it and waited for the Board's answer. I received unanimous approval and contacted a reputable well drilling company. No Problem! I made sure that where the well-site was located and witched, was 'up-stream of my barn, septic tank and so-on. I have not referred to the EPA or any other agency as 'jack-booted thugs' maybe 'thugs'. Sometimes, some folks can let a little power go to their heads. I go by the 'reasonable man' theory.


Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

How much damage will happen the next time that stream floods? What will the damage be to the structures downstream if the dam goes all at once? What will the effect be of losing the water downstream during times of drought?



You seem to be focused on negatives. I'm sure there must be some positives in the situation also.

The pond might mitigate flooding by absorbing excess water for a while and smoothing out the downstream flow. If the dam breaks, it's just a duck pond, there can't be that much water in it. During drought, if there's no water upstream, there wouldn't have been any water downstream either - no change, except that this guy is smart enough to stockpile water in his pond for himself.

See the "Benefits" section of beaver dams, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_dam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boogers

***How much damage will happen the next time that stream floods? What will the damage be to the structures downstream if the dam goes all at once? What will the effect be of losing the water downstream during times of drought?



You seem to be focused on negatives. I'm sure there must be some positives in the situation also.

The pond might mitigate flooding by absorbing excess water for a while and smoothing out the downstream flow. If the dam breaks, it's just a duck pond, there can't be that much water in it. During drought, if there's no water upstream, there wouldn't have been any water downstream either - no change, except that this guy is smart enough to stockpile water in his pond for himself.

See the "Benefits" section of beaver dams, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_dam

Wyoming has a law dating back to their territorial days and is still on the books which in brief states first come first use. No one can totally cut-off water to downstream recipients but those upstream can divert it to fill a stock tank or irrigation or other use.


Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> During drought, if there's no water upstream, there wouldn't have been any
>water downstream either - no change, except that this guy is smart enough to
>stockpile water in his pond for himself.

Ah. So that dam won't affect the water flowing through it one bit during a drought.

Once again, that's why we have an EPA - so people who are clueless about things like water loss due to dams aren't building dams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boogers

******You seem to be focused on negatives.


First, do no harm.
If a single negative is done, then resulting multiple positives should not be reaped?

Depends on the negative. The extinction of a species is a very big negative to overcome for the benefit of a single individual's wealth and selfishness.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quade

*********You seem to be focused on negatives.


First, do no harm.
If a single negative is done, then resulting multiple positives should not be reaped?

Depends on the negative. The extinction of a species is a very big negative to overcome for the benefit of a single individual's wealth and selfishness.

I don't think this guy's duck pond is going to cause any species extinction. More likely it'll help species thrive.

But if you want to take that argument, what about skydiving? Are the 25 deaths every year worth it for the brief moments of freefall joy we experience? Many whuffos would say not. Be careful what you wish for. One day they come for your duck pond, and the next they come for your sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boogers

But if you want to take that argument, what about skydiving? Are the 25 deaths every year worth it for the brief moments of freefall joy we experience?



Different argument since the affects of skydiving are not on the public at large, but almost exclusively contained within the population that wishes to participate.

There is a saying that, "your rights end at the tip of my nose." You wanna fling yourself out of an airplane or off a cliff, that's cool. Just don't crater in my backyard or force others to clean up your mess.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>If a single negative is done, then resulting multiple positives should not be reaped?

Especially if the positives are only in someone's mind, and that someone has no clue what he is doing.

I remember how many positives there were supposed to be for rabbits in Australia. Sure, they might eat some grass, but think of all the opportunities for hunting, food and furs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0