Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property

[Mustang]

All Andy Johnson wanted to do was build a stock pond on his sprawling eight-acre Wyoming farm. He and his wife Katie spent hours constructing it, filling it with crystal-clear water, and bringing in brook and brown trout, ducks and geese. It was a place where his horses could drink and graze, and a private playground for his three children

But instead of enjoying the fruits of his labor, the Wyoming welder says he was harangued by the federal government, stuck in what he calls a petty power play by the Environmental Protection AgencyHe claims the agency is now threatening him with civil and criminal penalties – including the threat of a $75,000-a-day fine.

Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property | Fox News

Fuck the EPA, Fuck the Gov.

When I first saw the story (and heard about it from Mark Levin), I have to admit that the first thing that went through my mind was the following: I can't remember one SINGLE time, going back years, when I've seen a story like this that was pushed by conservatives that wasn't either a lie, a misrepresentation, an exaggeration, or tha otherwise left out pertinent facts that completely changed the story to make it either innocuous, understandable, or even justifiable.

Because of that history, it got to the point that I didn't even bother to research the story or look into the details because I just figured I would see the same ol' thing as I always have. So it was with this story...until I saw it here.

Just on the off chance that there might be some truth to part of the story, I decided to click on the link, although I figured that was only the first step, and I would ultimately have to go elsewhere than FOX to get important details that were either conveniently not included or intentionally omitted from the FOX story. So, imagine my amazement when I discovered that the headline wasn't even accurate since building the stock pond doesn't even appear to be the issue. The issue is damming the creek AND the runoff from the pond. But I'm not amazed at what I found; I expected the story to be a misrepresentation. I'm just amazed that I didn't have to search further to get the real story.

Which leads me to another issue. Anyone in the semi-arid West (and probably in the East, as well) knows, or should know, that you can't just simply decide on your own to dam up a creek that crosses your land when that creek also provides water to other landowners. Hell, if this guy had done something like this back in the 1880s, he'd be lucky if the men downstream who owned farms and ranches didn't just storm his property and threaten to shoot him where he stood if he didn't remove that dam.

Of course you would claim omissions and misrepresentations.
After all, this is the US Government. In your eyes, they can do no wrong.
And since what you claim to have found it not represented in this thread, it doesn't exist.
The other problem you have is you have decided to make the news source the issue.
Like an attorney presenting an alternate theory to the crime for the purposes of deflecting attention away from his client.
You are no F.Lee Bailey and this ain't a jury box full of people too stupid to figure out how to get out of jury duty..

Odd. You seem to care SO much about this guy's rights, but you don't seem to give a shit about the rights of any of the people downstream from this guy.

Perhaps I can offer you an equivalent example for a situation you would be more likely to encounter.

You're living in a pretty nice neighborhood in an area that's experiencing a drought. You have a neighbor who lives nearby but not too close. He owns more land than you, and he decides to clear out some brush and some old dead trees. No problem...until he decides he's going to burn them over the course of several nights in order to save the fee for hauling them away. Well, you and your neighbors are worried about a fire starting on your properties because of the drought. You express your concern to your neighbor, but he tells you to mind your own business because it's HIS land, and he's gonna do as he damn well pleases. Your neighbors call the authorities to register a complaint to prevent any further burning for obvious reasons. Would you expect your gov't to help you and your neighbors in order to prevent a fire, or would you support your neighbor's right to do as he pleases even if it's possible that his actions might lead to homes and or garages catching fire and going up in flames?

 

[Luissa]

Finally found a better link.
http://m.trib.com/news/state-and-re...555b-8c15-fc48fbfe0073.html?mobile_touch=true


He obviously didn't take all the proper steps, but I think the EPA is backing off. He did dam a creek but it has been beneficial to the area.
I doubt the EPA will take this any farther. It would be stupid to.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[Luissa]

My biggest issue here is all the facts left out in the Fox, The Blaze, and The Brietbart Article.
The EPA needs to let this man have his pond, but anyone who made up their mind by the Fox article is a moron.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[thereisnospoon]

When I first saw the story (and heard about it from Mark Levin), I have to admit that the first thing that went through my mind was the following: I can't remember one SINGLE time, going back years, when I've seen a story like this that was pushed by conservatives that wasn't either a lie, a misrepresentation, an exaggeration, or tha otherwise left out pertinent facts that completely changed the story to make it either innocuous, understandable, or even justifiable.

Because of that history, it got to the point that I didn't even bother to research the story or look into the details because I just figured I would see the same ol' thing as I always have. So it was with this story...until I saw it here.

Just on the off chance that there might be some truth to part of the story, I decided to click on the link, although I figured that was only the first step, and I would ultimately have to go elsewhere than FOX to get important details that were either conveniently not included or intentionally omitted from the FOX story. So, imagine my amazement when I discovered that the headline wasn't even accurate since building the stock pond doesn't even appear to be the issue. The issue is damming the creek AND the runoff from the pond. But I'm not amazed at what I found; I expected the story to be a misrepresentation. I'm just amazed that I didn't have to search further to get the real story.

Which leads me to another issue. Anyone in the semi-arid West (and probably in the East, as well) knows, or should know, that you can't just simply decide on your own to dam up a creek that crosses your land when that creek also provides water to other landowners. Hell, if this guy had done something like this back in the 1880s, he'd be lucky if the men downstream who owned farms and ranches didn't just storm his property and threaten to shoot him where he stood if he didn't remove that dam.

Of course you would claim omissions and misrepresentations.
After all, this is the US Government. In your eyes, they can do no wrong.
And since what you claim to have found it not represented in this thread, it doesn't exist.
The other problem you have is you have decided to make the news source the issue.
Like an attorney presenting an alternate theory to the crime for the purposes of deflecting attention away from his client.
You are no F.Lee Bailey and this ain't a jury box full of people too stupid to figure out how to get out of jury duty..

Odd. You seem to care SO much about this guy's rights, but you don't seem to give a shit about the rights of any of the people downstream from this guy.

Perhaps I can offer you an equivalent example for a situation you would be more likely to encounter.

You're living in a pretty nice neighborhood in an area that's experiencing a drought. You have a neighbor who lives nearby but not too close. He owns more land than you, and he decides to clear out some brush and some old dead trees. No problem...until he decides he's going to burn them over the course of several nights in order to save the fee for hauling them away. Well, you and your neighbors are worried about a fire starting on your properties because of the drought. You express your concern to your neighbor, but he tells you to mind your own business because it's HIS land, and he's gonna do as he damn well pleases. Your neighbors call the authorities to register a complaint to prevent any further burning for obvious reasons. Would you expect your gov't to help you and your neighbors in order to prevent a fire, or would you support your neighbor's right to do as he pleases even if it's possible that his actions might lead to homes and or garages catching fire and going up in flames?

The rights of those downstream are not the issue. Nor is the EPA using 'downstream water rights' as part of their charges.
According to the story, the pond does not reduce the volume of water going down stream. For that matter no mention of property owners downstream has been made at all.
You brought that up as cover for your non existent argument
As to your scenario..
The answer is no. Unless there was a red flag warning or an ordinance prohibiting outdoor burning, the local government has not a leg to stand on. as long as the property owner in question is adhering to any existing regulations ( having a water source nearby to extinguish any stray flare ups or to wet down the soil surrounding the burn pile) there is little anyone can do.
In fact, the person burning can be a good neighbor by not burning on days where the winds are gusting. He could also offer to help his neighbors with their cuttings and burn them as well.
Your scenario just got treated like a fart in the wind.
How about this.....
We're out in a rural area. A landowner has a natural spring on his property that becomes a creek that flows off his property. He has a large tract of land. Say 10 acres. The water travels some 1000 ft before it exits his property via a swale that goes into a large wooded area.
The landowner decides to start using the spring water because he has built a chicken coop and obtained hens for laying eggs to feed his family....
Understanding riparian rights, what say you?

 

[thereisnospoon]

My biggest issue here is all the facts left out in the Fox, The Blaze, and The Brietbart Article.
The EPA needs to let this man have his pond, but anyone who made up their mind by the Fox article is a moron.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Which "facts" have been left out?\
Both you and another poster are convinced the story we've seen is incomplete or has been edited. Neither the OP or you has offered any proof of the so called"'missing facts".
Have at it.

 

[Mustang]

Of course you would claim omissions and misrepresentations.
After all, this is the US Government. In your eyes, they can do no wrong.
And since what you claim to have found it not represented in this thread, it doesn't exist.
The other problem you have is you have decided to make the news source the issue.
Like an attorney presenting an alternate theory to the crime for the purposes of deflecting attention away from his client.
You are no F.Lee Bailey and this ain't a jury box full of people too stupid to figure out how to get out of jury duty..

Odd. You seem to care SO much about this guy's rights, but you don't seem to give a shit about the rights of any of the people downstream from this guy.

Perhaps I can offer you an equivalent example for a situation you would be more likely to encounter.

You're living in a pretty nice neighborhood in an area that's experiencing a drought. You have a neighbor who lives nearby but not too close. He owns more land than you, and he decides to clear out some brush and some old dead trees. No problem...until he decides he's going to burn them over the course of several nights in order to save the fee for hauling them away. Well, you and your neighbors are worried about a fire starting on your properties because of the drought. You express your concern to your neighbor, but he tells you to mind your own business because it's HIS land, and he's gonna do as he damn well pleases. Your neighbors call the authorities to register a complaint to prevent any further burning for obvious reasons. Would you expect your gov't to help you and your neighbors in order to prevent a fire, or would you support your neighbor's right to do as he pleases even if it's possible that his actions might lead to homes and or garages catching fire and going up in flames?

The rights of those downstream are not the issue. Nor is the EPA using 'downstream water rights' as part of their charges.
According to the story, the pond does not reduce the volume of water going down stream. For that matter no mention of property owners downstream has been made at all.
You brought that up as cover for your non existent argument
As to your scenario..
The answer is no. Unless there was a red flag warning or an ordinance prohibiting outdoor burning, the local government has not a leg to stand on. as long as the property owner in question is adhering to any existing regulations ( having a water source nearby to extinguish any stray flare ups or to wet down the soil surrounding the burn pile) there is little anyone can do.
In fact, the person burning can be a good neighbor by not burning on days where the winds are gusting. He could also offer to help his neighbors with their cuttings and burn them as well.
Your scenario just got treated like a fart in the wind.
How about this.....
We're out in a rural area. A landowner has a natural spring on his property that becomes a creek that flows off his property. He has a large tract of land. Say 10 acres. The water travels some 1000 ft before it exits his property via a swale that goes into a large wooded area.
The landowner decides to start using the spring water because he has built a chicken coop and obtained hens for laying eggs to feed his family....
Understanding riparian rights, what say you?

You can't fill up a pond if you don't reduce the flow of the stream.

 

[Luissa]

My biggest issue here is all the facts left out in the Fox, The Blaze, and The Brietbart Article.

The EPA needs to let this man have his pond, but anyone who made up their mind by the Fox article is a moron.





Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Which "facts" have been left out?\

Both you and another poster are convinced the story we've seen is incomplete or has been edited. Neither the OP or you has offered any proof of the so called"'missing facts".

Have at it.

I did a few posts back, sorry you can't follow a thread.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.