$16 Million Fine for Building Pond on Private Property

[Camp]

SHOCKING!!! A single property owner is prevented from destroying the water resources for hundreds of thousands or even millions of citizens down stream from the individuals property. Where has freedom gone?

Didn't read the link did ya, scientific test have proven the pond has improved downstream water quality. Fuck off ignorant ass.

Ignoring the fact that the dam is his, but the water that flows through it is not his. In the western part of the United States water is an important commodity you do not divert it for your own needs, you do not impede the flow to serve your own purpose.

As you ignore that a permit was cleared by the local officials to build such a damn. Where in the process is vetting done by the EPA for all permits to build in this country????????????? They come in after the fact and say you are in violation of the EPA and say OR ELSE?????????????

To people that have thought they had followed the rules, as they had gotten the required permits to build already....................

Then to be FINED LARGE AMOUNTS of money WITHOUT A DAY IN COURT....................

In the article I posted that is exactly what happened............They just showed up one day and said stop what you are doing, return the land to it's original status...............or pay $37,500 a day until it is resolved............................

Where in the Constitution did we GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THAT KIND OF POWER.............

Where in they system did the EPA come down on those ISSUING THE PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS.........................The fault lies there as well NOW DOESN'T IT..................But they do nothing to those issuing permits and give out FINES THAT ARE LUDICROUS.....................Without giving those being fined A SINGLE DAY IN COURT...................

Anyone who would think this is OK, I question their sanity.

The EPA didn't just show up one day. The EPA says the issue is about the pond being an actual stock pond, meaning a pond to secure water for a ranches livestock. The pond in question is very big and it is not being established by the owner that a pond of that size is needed to secure water for the stock on the size property in question. It appears to be a pond designed for aesthetic purpose and as a fishing pond.
The fines did not just begin on some surprise date. The owners were informed that they needed to halt the operation of the dam (drain the pond) and allow the free flow of the creek in a 30 day period. The owners decided to disregard the legal order and vowed to fight the case. If they had followed the ruling they would not be fined a single dime. They could have continued their argument and court case.
The repercussions of allowing the owner to continue could lead to unregulated building of little fishing ponds in front of homes across the west and water rights being transferred for federal authority to state authority. Anyone with two horses would become eligible for a several acre fishing or recreational pond in front of their house.

 

[OKTexas]

SHOCKING!!! A single property owner is prevented from destroying the water resources for hundreds of thousands or even millions of citizens down stream from the individuals property. Where has freedom gone?

Didn't read the link did ya, scientific test have proven the pond has improved downstream water quality. Fuck off ignorant ass.

Private test done by the dam builder, but that is not the point. The guy should be fighting with the state if his story is true. Something is not adding up. Why would the state tell him he was clear to build when they would know he needed fed approval. There is something to this story not being told.
In any case, further research into the story indicates the feds are trying to work something out that will not impact the property owner in what appears to be a state vs fed turf war over water rights.

Ever thought the state was aware of the federal exemption for stock ponds, something the EPA is ignoring.

 

[OKTexas]

SHOCKING!!! A single property owner is prevented from destroying the water resources for hundreds of thousands or even millions of citizens down stream from the individuals property. Where has freedom gone?

Didn't read the link did ya, scientific test have proven the pond has improved downstream water quality. Fuck off ignorant ass.

Ignoring the fact that the dam is his, but the water that flows through it is not his. In the western part of the United States water is an important commodity you do not divert it for your own needs, you do not impede the flow to serve your own purpose.

As you ignore that a permit was cleared by the local officials to build such a damn. Where in the process is vetting done by the EPA for all permits to build in this country????????????? They come in after the fact and say you are in violation of the EPA and say OR ELSE?????????????

To people that have thought they had followed the rules, as they had gotten the required permits to build already....................

Then to be FINED LARGE AMOUNTS of money WITHOUT A DAY IN COURT....................

In the article I posted that is exactly what happened............They just showed up one day and said stop what you are doing, return the land to it's original status...............or pay $37,500 a day until it is resolved............................

Where in the Constitution did we GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THAT KIND OF POWER.............

Where in they system did the EPA come down on those ISSUING THE PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS.........................The fault lies there as well NOW DOESN'T IT..................But they do nothing to those issuing permits and give out FINES THAT ARE LUDICROUS.....................Without giving those being fined A SINGLE DAY IN COURT...................

Anyone who would think this is OK, I question their sanity.

The EPA didn't just show up one day. The EPA says the issue is about the pond being an actual stock pond, meaning a pond to secure water for a ranches livestock. The pond in question is very big and it is not being established by the owner that a pond of that size is needed to secure water for the stock on the size property in question. It appears to be a pond designed for aesthetic purpose and as a fishing pond.
The fines did not just begin on some surprise date. The owners were informed that they needed to halt the operation of the dam (drain the pond) and allow the free flow of the creek in a 30 day period. The owners decided to disregard the legal order and vowed to fight the case. If they had followed the ruling they would not be fined a single dime. They could have continued their argument and court case.
The repercussions of allowing the owner to continue could lead to unregulated building of little fishing ponds in front of homes across the west and water rights being transferred for federal authority to state authority. Anyone with two horses would become eligible for a several acre fishing or recreational pond in front of their house.

And?

 

[Camp]

SHOCKING!!! A single property owner is prevented from destroying the water resources for hundreds of thousands or even millions of citizens down stream from the individuals property. Where has freedom gone?

Didn't read the link did ya, scientific test have proven the pond has improved downstream water quality. Fuck off ignorant ass.

Private test done by the dam builder, but that is not the point. The guy should be fighting with the state if his story is true. Something is not adding up. Why would the state tell him he was clear to build when they would know he needed fed approval. There is something to this story not being told.
In any case, further research into the story indicates the feds are trying to work something out that will not impact the property owner in what appears to be a state vs fed turf war over water rights.

Ever thought the state was aware of the federal exemption for stock ponds, something the EPA is ignoring.

If this is about a stock pond I support the rancher. Stock ponds are supposed to be exempt. I have not seen this information elaborated on. It appears there is a statement on record from the EPA challenging that the purpose of the pond is that of a stock pond. It the stock pond designation is being used as a loophole to allow a nice little fish pond to be built it is not helpful to ranchers. It is the opposite. Ranchers and farmers who need the water will be denied needed water so that folks can have their little fishing and kayak ponds spotted all over the quickly developing foothills and plains on the eastern slopes of the Rockies.

 

[eagle1462010]

SHOCKING!!! A single property owner is prevented from destroying the water resources for hundreds of thousands or even millions of citizens down stream from the individuals property. Where has freedom gone?

Didn't read the link did ya, scientific test have proven the pond has improved downstream water quality. Fuck off ignorant ass.

Ignoring the fact that the dam is his, but the water that flows through it is not his. In the western part of the United States water is an important commodity you do not divert it for your own needs, you do not impede the flow to serve your own purpose.

As you ignore that a permit was cleared by the local officials to build such a damn. Where in the process is vetting done by the EPA for all permits to build in this country????????????? They come in after the fact and say you are in violation of the EPA and say OR ELSE?????????????

To people that have thought they had followed the rules, as they had gotten the required permits to build already....................

Then to be FINED LARGE AMOUNTS of money WITHOUT A DAY IN COURT....................

In the article I posted that is exactly what happened............They just showed up one day and said stop what you are doing, return the land to it's original status...............or pay $37,500 a day until it is resolved............................

Where in the Constitution did we GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THAT KIND OF POWER.............

Where in they system did the EPA come down on those ISSUING THE PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS.........................The fault lies there as well NOW DOESN'T IT..................But they do nothing to those issuing permits and give out FINES THAT ARE LUDICROUS.....................Without giving those being fined A SINGLE DAY IN COURT...................

Anyone who would think this is OK, I question their sanity.

The EPA didn't just show up one day. The EPA says the issue is about the pond being an actual stock pond, meaning a pond to secure water for a ranches livestock. The pond in question is very big and it is not being established by the owner that a pond of that size is needed to secure water for the stock on the size property in question. It appears to be a pond designed for aesthetic purpose and as a fishing pond.
The fines did not just begin on some surprise date. The owners were informed that they needed to halt the operation of the dam (drain the pond) and allow the free flow of the creek in a 30 day period. The owners decided to disregard the legal order and vowed to fight the case. If they had followed the ruling they would not be fined a single dime. They could have continued their argument and court case.
The repercussions of allowing the owner to continue could lead to unregulated building of little fishing ponds in front of homes across the west and water rights being transferred for federal authority to state authority. Anyone with two horses would become eligible for a several acre fishing or recreational pond in front of their house.

In the article for the couple in Idaho they did the same and the couple won the case in that issue.

In this case they got the permits from the local and the state, and again...........when the fines were subjected to them it was without the owner getting one day in court. He has filed with the court to challenge their decision, but that date will take time.............in the meantime trying to get his day in court the fines stack up to the point of lunacy......................

Why aren't they part of the local inspections process when permits are issued and inspections are performed by local and state officials.....................

They come in after the fact, and after a lot of money has been spent with the permission of the zoning ordinances of the area....................Where are the EPA ordinances in the local and state codes...................

Just like the Gov't to force their rules on people like this after the fact and NOT BEFORE THE PERMITS ARE ISSUED..........................

In the case of the lake house, when it finally went to court they OWED MILLIONS IN FINES.............because they refused to pay fines to the EPA, and refused to give up their small dream home without a day in Court. They won the case.............they had checked the zoning........the property was not on ANY WET LAND MAP..............yet the EPA SAID IT'S WET LAND BECAUSE WE SAY SO......................

Had they lost the case they would have been bankrupt............

Again, you see no problem with this..................The EPA along with other Gov't agencies have red tape out the ass, and aren't even included in the regulations to build on State and Local agencies....................Incompetence in gov't agencies yet again..............it's normal for them to be incompetent and then AFTER THE FACT say you are in VIOLATION making up the rules as they see fit as they go along

The EPA, the BLM need their fucking nuts cut off.

 

[OKTexas]

SHOCKING!!! A single property owner is prevented from destroying the water resources for hundreds of thousands or even millions of citizens down stream from the individuals property. Where has freedom gone?

Didn't read the link did ya, scientific test have proven the pond has improved downstream water quality. Fuck off ignorant ass.

Private test done by the dam builder, but that is not the point. The guy should be fighting with the state if his story is true. Something is not adding up. Why would the state tell him he was clear to build when they would know he needed fed approval. There is something to this story not being told.
In any case, further research into the story indicates the feds are trying to work something out that will not impact the property owner in what appears to be a state vs fed turf war over water rights.

Ever thought the state was aware of the federal exemption for stock ponds, something the EPA is ignoring.

If this is about a stock pond I support the rancher. Stock ponds are supposed to be exempt. I have not seen this information elaborated on. It appears there is a statement on record from the EPA challenging that the purpose of the pond is that of a stock pond. It the stock pond designation is being used as a loophole to allow a nice little fish pond to be built it is not helpful to ranchers. It is the opposite. Ranchers and farmers who need the water will be denied needed water so that folks can have their little fishing and kayak ponds spotted all over the quickly developing foothills and plains on the eastern slopes of the Rockies.

What it boils down to is the Maobama EPA trying to exert authority over every spot two or more rain drops may gather. The feds don't have the constitutional authority to do that, of course that never stops them.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[paulitician]

The land, sea, and air. Big Brother wants it all. You will grovel at his feet and beg him to provide you with his scraps. It's the New World Order. Enjoy.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf

The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects— would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees. The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy. The EPA may issue a compliance order demanding that the owners cease construction, engage in expensive remedial measures, and abandon any use of the property. If the owners do not do the EPA’s bidding, they may be fined up to $75,000 per day ($37,500 for violating the Act and another $37,500 for violating the compliance order). And if the owners want their day in court to show that their lot does not include covered wetlands, well, as a practical matter, that is just too bad. Until the EPA sues them, they are blocked from access to the courts, and the EPA may wait as long as it wants before deciding to sue. By that time, the potential fines may easily have reached the millions. In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable. The Court’s decision provides a modest measure of relief. At least, property owners like petitioners will have the right to challenge the EPA’s jurisdictional determination under the Administrative Procedure Act. But the combination of the uncertain reach of the Clean Water Act and the draconian penalties imposed for the sort of violations alleged in this case still leaves most property owners with little practical alternative but to dance to the EPA’s tune. Real relief requires Congress to do what it should have done in the first place: provide a reasonably clear rule regarding the reach of the Clean Water Act. When Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, it provided that the Act covers “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(7). But Congress did not define what it meant by “the waters of the United States”; the phrase was not a term of art with a known meaning; and the words themselves are hopelessly indeterminate. Unsurprisingly, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers interpreted the phrase as an essentially limitless grant of authority. We rejected that boundless view, see Rapanos v. United States, 547 U. S. 715, 732–739 (2006) (plurality opinion); Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U. S. 159, 167–174 (2001), but the precise reach of the Act remains unclear. For 40 years, Congress has done nothing to resolve this critical ambiguity, and the EPA has not seen fit to promulgate a rule providing a clear and sufficiently limited definition of the phrase. Instead, the agency has relied on informal guidance. But far from providing clarity and predictability, the agency’s latest informal guidance advises property owners that many jurisdictional determinations concerning wetlands can only be made on a case-by-case basis by EPA field staff. See Brief f

 

[eagle1462010]

The game is rigged....................See the opinions of the Supreme Court on the Sacket's case..............saying that Congress needs to change the law in their summation..............

Yes the Sackets took the issue all the way to the Supreme Court of this nation..........yet even then they didn't get full justice for the EPA showing up saying YOUR LAND IS WET, MAKE IT WET AGAIN OR ELSE..............

Then the EPA started the daily FINES...................making it millions without a day in court.................

I REPEAT that the EPA AND BLM need their Fing nuts cut off.

 

[nuhuh]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf

The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects— would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees. The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy. The EPA may issue a compliance order demanding that the owners cease construction, engage in expensive remedial measures, and abandon any use of the property. If the owners do not do the EPA’s bidding, they may be fined up to $75,000 per day ($37,500 for violating the Act and another $37,500 for violating the compliance order). And if the owners want their day in court to show that their lot does not include covered wetlands, well, as a practical matter, that is just too bad. Until the EPA sues them, they are blocked from access to the courts, and the EPA may wait as long as it wants before deciding to sue. By that time, the potential fines may easily have reached the millions. In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable. The Court’s decision provides a modest measure of relief. At least, property owners like petitioners will have the right to challenge the EPA’s jurisdictional determination under the Administrative Procedure Act. But the combination of the uncertain reach of the Clean Water Act and the draconian penalties imposed for the sort of violations alleged in this case still leaves most property owners with little practical alternative but to dance to the EPA’s tune. Real relief requires Congress to do what it should have done in the first place: provide a reasonably clear rule regarding the reach of the Clean Water Act. When Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, it provided that the Act covers “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(7). But Congress did not define what it meant by “the waters of the United States”; the phrase was not a term of art with a known meaning; and the words themselves are hopelessly indeterminate. Unsurprisingly, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers interpreted the phrase as an essentially limitless grant of authority. We rejected that boundless view, see Rapanos v. United States, 547 U. S. 715, 732–739 (2006) (plurality opinion); Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U. S. 159, 167–174 (2001), but the precise reach of the Act remains unclear. For 40 years, Congress has done nothing to resolve this critical ambiguity, and the EPA has not seen fit to promulgate a rule providing a clear and sufficiently limited definition of the phrase. Instead, the agency has relied on informal guidance. But far from providing clarity and predictability, the agency’s latest informal guidance advises property owners that many jurisdictional determinations concerning wetlands can only be made on a case-by-case basis by EPA field staff. See Brief f

That was nothing more than a decision that the Sackett's could sue. It was remanded to a District court in 2012 and still hasn't been heard. Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf

The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects— would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees. The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy. The EPA may issue a compliance order demanding that the owners cease construction, engage in expensive remedial measures, and abandon any use of the property. If the owners do not do the EPA’s bidding, they may be fined up to $75,000 per day ($37,500 for violating the Act and another $37,500 for violating the compliance order). And if the owners want their day in court to show that their lot does not include covered wetlands, well, as a practical matter, that is just too bad. Until the EPA sues them, they are blocked from access to the courts, and the EPA may wait as long as it wants before deciding to sue. By that time, the potential fines may easily have reached the millions. In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable. The Court’s decision provides a modest measure of relief. At least, property owners like petitioners will have the right to challenge the EPA’s jurisdictional determination under the Administrative Procedure Act. But the combination of the uncertain reach of the Clean Water Act and the draconian penalties imposed for the sort of violations alleged in this case still leaves most property owners with little practical alternative but to dance to the EPA’s tune. Real relief requires Congress to do what it should have done in the first place: provide a reasonably clear rule regarding the reach of the Clean Water Act. When Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, it provided that the Act covers “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §1362(7). But Congress did not define what it meant by “the waters of the United States”; the phrase was not a term of art with a known meaning; and the words themselves are hopelessly indeterminate. Unsurprisingly, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers interpreted the phrase as an essentially limitless grant of authority. We rejected that boundless view, see Rapanos v. United States, 547 U. S. 715, 732–739 (2006) (plurality opinion); Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U. S. 159, 167–174 (2001), but the precise reach of the Act remains unclear. For 40 years, Congress has done nothing to resolve this critical ambiguity, and the EPA has not seen fit to promulgate a rule providing a clear and sufficiently limited definition of the phrase. Instead, the agency has relied on informal guidance. But far from providing clarity and predictability, the agency’s latest informal guidance advises property owners that many jurisdictional determinations concerning wetlands can only be made on a case-by-case basis by EPA field staff. See Brief f

That was nothing more than a decision that the Sackett's could sue. It was remanded to a District court in 2012 and still hasn't been heard. Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was historical because until the Sackett case NO ONE, and I REPEAT, NO ONE could EVEN SUE the EPA for imposing fines on compliance orders................

If you read what I posted you would see that the Supreme Court opinion posted is saying that CONGRESS needs to fix this and that this decision allows them to sue for the compliance orders where they HAD NO OPTIONS BEFORE.............

In other words..............GOD...............THE EPA...........comes to your property........says it's WET LANDS and you will put it BACK TO WET LAND STATUS OR ELSE...................They can impose up to $75,000 a day until you do as they say...............They also say that the old law gives them the ability to do so..............and that YOU HAVE NO LEGAL RECOURSE OTHER THAN COMPLY.

AGAIN, you don't see a problem with that abuse of power................

It doesn't matter whether the stock pond is righteous or not...........it is about the rule of law and giving those being fined a day in court to CHALLENGE THE COMPLIANCE ORDER..............

 

[eagle1462010]

Unanimous Supreme Court Tells EPA Its Orders Can Be Appealed | Marten Law

The decision raises a host of questions for environmental lawyers and their clients, both in the government and the regulated community. For example:

• Will the Justice Department require a greater level of review of EPA orders, knowing it is more likely to have to defend them?
• Does the Sackett decision apply retroactively to allow parties already complying with an enforcement order to now challenge that order?
• Will parties currently in negotiation with EPA regarding compliance with an enforcement order now see benefit in appealing – or at least threatening to — in the hope of gaining a tactical advantage?
• What kind of burden will the decision place on EPA and state agency personnel, who will likely now have to devote more resources to preparing for litigation?
• Will filing an APA challenge succeed in tolling the accrual of penalties? If the challenge is unsuccessful, will penalties run from the date of the order or the date of final resolution of the challenge?
• To what extent will state-level enforcement actions under delegated programs be impacted?

Background
The CWA prohibits the discharge of “any pollutant” without a permit into “navigable waters.”[6] The Act defines “navigable waters” as “waters of the United States,”[7] which have been defined by regulation to include wetlands adjacent to navigable waters or their tributaries.[8] More specifically for the Sacketts, the CWA prohibits depositing fill material into wetlands without a permit under CWA Section 404.[9] Administration of the Section 404 permit program is done by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”), but the Corps shares enforcement authority with EPA. When EPA determines that an unauthorized discharge has occurred, it has three enforcement options: (1) assess an administrative penalty;[10] (2) initiate a civil enforcement action in U.S. district court;[11]or (3) issue an administrative compliance order directing the violator to remove the discharged material.[12] A party that fails to comply with an administrative order is potentially liable for up to $37,500 for each day of non-compliance with that order and potentially an additional $37,500 per day for the underlying CWA violation as well.[13]

- See more at: Unanimous Supreme Court Tells EPA Its Orders Can Be Appealed | Marten Law

 

[nuhuh]

So three years since Republicans have handed down that sage advice and the House has done nothing. How typical

 

[eagle1462010]

So three years since Republicans have handed down that sage advice and the House has done nothing. How typical

Don't know if anyone has tried to change the rules under the clean air act or not........Perhaps it has been tried...............

So why do you throw down only on one party on this...................Both parties can try to resolve this problem.................Obama could push this problem.................

Problem is...........they want more Federal Power................not less of it............The EPA wants to be able to walk on your land and say OR ELSE...........because you built a shop on some wet dirt and call it Wet Lands...........If you fail to comply they will Bankrupt you and take your land..............and they have set it up for no legal recourse..............

So I again ask you is this right or wrong................no more spin on Oh it's the GOP's fault for not fixing it.............This has been going on for decades............Why didn't the Dems fix it when they had all the power......................Its not a political issue.........

It is about small people having the right to Challenge Federal Agencies in court over issues like the one in this thread......................

A small couple.............gave the right of appeal to all others by making the stand................as they were abused by the EPA. They have risked and possibly lost all of their finances in the process...............but they decided that what the EPA did to them was wrong..............So wrong that they took the issue all the way to the Supreme Court.

They weren't politicians............they were just a couple who wanted to retire and spend their remaining years with a lake view in Idaho............on .63 acres of land...............and were then ATTACKED BY THE EPA for putting in a house foundation on land that wasn't even on the EPA'S maps as WET LANDS.............

Do you see this policy with the EPA wrong................

Speak into the microphone.

 

[eagle1462010]

Elvis has left the building................or can't say one way or another how this shit is wrong...................

Perhaps he or her can't bring themselves to admit that we have allowed orgs like the EPA TOO MUCH POWER.

In the end, he could only play why haven't the Republicans fix it.

tsk tsk

 

[nuhuh]

Elvis has left the building................or can't say one way or another how this shit is wrong...................

Perhaps he or her can't bring themselves to admit that we have allowed orgs like the EPA TOO MUCH POWER.

In the end, he could only play why haven't the Republicans fix it.

tsk tsk

Sorry, it's Sunday and I have other things to do besides sit on a computer all day.

Your version is wrong, the EPA has power because business has abused respect for the law. Over the years we got fed up with dirty air, polluted water, dying forests, contaminated land both public and private, cancer causing pollutants, mercury in the atmosphere, asbestos in leftover mine tailings, rivers and faucets catching on fire, carcinogens in our food and much much more.

Now, business and the friends of those businesses complain about a problem they brought on themselves. There is a history, a traceable history of the destruction of our mutually shared environment. Business has stripped forests bare, dug massive open pits and left them for others to clean up, they've destroyed archaeological sites all in the pursuit of profit and don't care about the damage left behind.

I have never heard a business that didn't complain about regulations or cost and I have heard nothing but the old adage "But it will cost jobs" to defuse any attempt to subject rules upon them. Simply, the EPA exists to keep those people in line even when they fight not to.

Twenty major expansions to the pollution controls of the EPA Act which Nixon established have been passed since 1970. Since 1995, the Congress has been in mostly Republican hands. The reason that nothing has been done is because both sides understand the need that the environment be protected. The argument resting between how much power or how little and is why nothing gets done. Who wants to be responsible for a catastrophe?

 

[eagle1462010]

Elvis has left the building................or can't say one way or another how this shit is wrong...................

Perhaps he or her can't bring themselves to admit that we have allowed orgs like the EPA TOO MUCH POWER.

In the end, he could only play why haven't the Republicans fix it.

tsk tsk

Sorry, it's Sunday and I have other things to do besides sit on a computer all day.

Your version is wrong, the EPA has power because business has abused respect for the law. Over the years we got fed up with dirty air, polluted water, dying forests, contaminated land both public and private, cancer causing pollutants, mercury in the atmosphere, asbestos in leftover mine tailings, rivers and faucets catching on fire, carcinogens in our food and much much more.

Now, business and the friends of those businesses complain about a problem they brought on themselves. There is a history, a traceable history of the destruction of our mutually shared environment. Business has stripped forests bare, dug massive open pits and left them for others to clean up, they've destroyed archaeological sites all in the pursuit of profit and don't care about the damage left behind.

I have never heard a business that didn't complain about regulations or cost and I have heard nothing but the old adage "But it will cost jobs" to defuse any attempt to subject rules upon them. Simply, the EPA exists to keep those people in line even when they fight not to.

Twenty major expansions to the pollution controls of the EPA Act which Nixon established have been passed since 1970. Since 1995, the Congress has been in mostly Republican hands. The reason that nothing has been done is because both sides understand the need that the environment be protected. The argument resting between how much power or how little and is why nothing gets done. Who wants to be responsible for a catastrophe?

LOL

I actually had held out the hope when you asked why the Republicans hadn't done anything about it that you saw the problem with it.....................But you go back to BIG GOV'T GOOD...........

So, if the EPA says anything or deems you in violation they are GOD and you have no recourse other than submit and OBEY...............You can't see the TYRANNY IN IT..................................
Search and Seizure without their day in Court is utter BS....................and that is what this case boils down to yet again.

The Sacketts weren't a big evil company. They were just Americans who picked a retirement property on a lake for their retirement. They followed the rules on buying the property. They got the permits, and had inspections done by the county. They even researched the Wet Lands issues on the maps................But the EPA came in and fucked their whole world up.......................and again you don't have a problem with it.

Says a lot about your ideology............

 

[sealybobo]

This is the point where government do-good regulations go beyond American freedoms and personal rights. How does a government agency have the power to stop a farmer from constructing a stock pond?



He's taking them to court – and it'll cost him lots and lots of $$$ he'll never get back. When do we elect representatives who will put a stop to this?



Read more @ Doug Ross @ Journal: Andy Johnson owes the #EPA more than $16 million in fines because he built a small pond on his land

You won't be happy until private corporations rule everything. Or own everything.

It's like terminator only its not robots its corporations that take us over.

This is why we have government and laws and rules. You gotta follow the rules.

Without rules theirs kaos.

 

[Mr. H.]

But he didn't just build a pond.

"In fact, the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA found that in order to create the pond, he constructed a dam on Six Mile Creek, a waterway deemed by the EPA to be a tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which in turn is a tributary of the Green River, which is a “navigable, interstate water of the United States.”

Building the dam constituted a “discharge of pollutants” into “waters of the United States,” according to the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, and thus required a permit that Johnson did not have, or seek. As with the Lucas case, EPA officials say that Johnson received multiple warnings before any enforcement actions were taken.

The EPA rules regarding discharging pollutants into waterways are based on a substantial body of evidence showing that water quality and flow in tributaries and wetlands can affect the water found downstream. In an extensive review of that evidence regarding connectivity of waterways, the EPA notes:

EPA, January 2015: The scientific literature unequivocally demonstrates that streams, individually or cumulatively, exert a strong influence on the integrity of downstream waters. All tributary streams, including perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, are physically, chemically, and biologically connected to downstream rivers via channels and associated alluvial deposits where water and other materials are concentrated, mixed, transformed, and transported."
Muddying the Clean Water Act

Why doesn't the EPA regulate runoff from farmland?

How big is that Gulf of Mexico dead zone these days?

EPA hounds this one guy, but refuses to go after an entire industry: The AZZ F'n Farmers.