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

[Quantum Windbag]

The guy got a legal permit and followed the rules. He has documentation to prove he did. **** the EPA. They, like many other government agencies, have become oppressive and abuse their power.

This is the same agency that says we can't catch rain water in barrels because the rain doesn't belong to us. They'd rather have people's gardens die out from lack of rain or make people run up their water bill and waste water instead of using the free rain.

As it turns out, no.

As it turns out? How do you know that? Because the EPA said so? Did you consider the possibility that they are wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As it turns out, no.

(smile) **** off Gov boy.....tell us when you've swallowed enough Lefty jizz.

Such harsh words from an old geezer.

Again, 'The guy got a legal permit and followed the rules'. As it turns out, no.

Let me guess, your User Name means you are in the bottom 1% of intelligence of all matter in the universe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Army Corps of Engineers is in control of the banks of rivers, and lakes.. My Dad had to replace trees that were cut down when they built their house by the lake, if he failed to do so he would have fined also.

You really have no idea where this pond is and if he built a dam into the pond area.....so assumptions for opinions will make your argument weak at best....

Funny thing about the law in this country, I don't have to prove he didn't build a dam, you have to prove he did.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Aren't the vast majority of faux ?news? contributors teabaggers?

And the majority of teabagger support comes from two guys that the EPA has targeted justly.

Koch Industries | PolluterWatch

And now we have the rest of the story!

And this has fuckall to do with what?

faux not telling the whole story. They tend to do that since the average age of a faux watcher is 68, or as I call it; 'the dementia class.'

Funny.

They quoted the EPA directly, and you are relaying on what Fox said about the EPA to defend them. What, exactly, did they not mention?

 

[Moonglow]

The Army Corps of Engineers is in control of the banks of rivers, and lakes.. My Dad had to replace trees that were cut down when they built their house by the lake, if he failed to do so he would have fined also.

You really have no idea where this pond is and if he built a dam into the pond area.....so assumptions for opinions will make your argument weak at best....

Funny thing about the law in this country, I don't have to prove he didn't build a dam, you have to prove he did.

Yes indeed. I would like to see the topographical map of the area in dispute....or an aerial shot...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What makes this guy think that the water in a creek that has egress on his property is HIS water?

Did you miss the part where he has a state permit?

No. Did you miss the part where he needed a Federal permit? He damned a creek that had egress on his property which flows to a larger tributary. Even if he didn't know about Federal permits, I'm sure he was told by the state, if not, there's his out. This is nothing more than the six P's of stupid.

Did you miss the part where the Clean Water Act specifies that the EPA has authority only over navigable waters? Or that it has a specific exemption for cattle ponds? Until you show me a picture of a dam on the property, I am going to apply the legal standard of innocent until proven guilty, and assume that he actually built a cattle pond.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

**** the EPA, **** the Gov.

how dare he build a pond on the kings land

 

[jon_berzerk]

Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 specifies what lands the congress has legislative authority over, it's time somebody reminds them of it. It reads as follows:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

It's really pretty straight forward, but they count on the little guy not having the resources to fight them, that's why 100 million of us should send this guy a dollar so he can afford to hire a legal "A Team" and shove it up the EPA's ass.

that is a good idea

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

**** the EPA, **** the Gov.

Oh, Fox News. LOL

So Fox News is making a story based on the claims of a person....No surprise there, perfectly normal for Fox "News".

I see that when you said that your political philosophy is anti party you actually meant pro government control.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Army Corps of Engineers is in control of the banks of rivers, and lakes.. My Dad had to replace trees that were cut down when they built their house by the lake, if he failed to do so he would have fined also.

You really have no idea where this pond is and if he built a dam into the pond area.....so assumptions for opinions will make your argument weak at best....

Damn you really are a freak with no earthly clue. The dam he built created the pond. I think you need to do a bit more research on what the Corps of Engineers does and what their lawful responsibilities are. Hint, the law only gives them authority over navigable waterways.

Like I stated before, my parents built a house next to a lake and the contractor they hired cut some trees down that were 10 feet from the bank on the lake. My parents had to replace the trees or face fines from the Corps of Engineers,I am well aware of what they control......

Are you the freak that can't discuss matters without calling names and being a dick???????????????????

Dude, the Corps is not the EPA.

 

[asterism]

What makes this guy think that the water in a creek that has egress on his property is HIS water?

The deed to his land, state law, and the permit he got from the state?

Since I answered your question, I have one for you. What makes the EPA think the stream on his property is navigable?

That's a good point, this seems to be a technical issue with the EPA. That said, in this part of Wyoming agricultural interests outweigh someone's desire to build a pond. Water rights are a big deal.

 

[OKTexas]

Such harsh words from an old geezer.

Again, 'The guy got a legal permit and followed the rules'. As it turns out, no.

Again it is HIS land......now trust me, I KNOW that a good "collectivist" like you hasn't a clue as to what "land ownership" means.....but tough shit. He OWNS it.

While it is his land, it's not his water and that seems to be the issue here. However, the EPA is very much out of control and they are the literal jack-booted thugs when they want to be.

It's not about the water, it's about the control.

 

[asterism]

The Army Corps of Engineers is in control of the banks of rivers, and lakes.. My Dad had to replace trees that were cut down when they built their house by the lake, if he failed to do so he would have fined also.

You really have no idea where this pond is and if he built a dam into the pond area.....so assumptions for opinions will make your argument weak at best....

Funny thing about the law in this country, I don't have to prove he didn't build a dam, you have to prove he did.

Yes indeed. I would like to see the topographical map of the area in dispute....or an aerial shot...

Then why don't you go find it? Property records are public.

 

[OKTexas]

The Army Corps of Engineers is in control of the banks of rivers, and lakes.. My Dad had to replace trees that were cut down when they built their house by the lake, if he failed to do so he would have fined also.

You really have no idea where this pond is and if he built a dam into the pond area.....so assumptions for opinions will make your argument weak at best....

Damn you really are a freak with no earthly clue. The dam he built created the pond. I think you need to do a bit more research on what the Corps of Engineers does and what their lawful responsibilities are. Hint, the law only gives them authority over navigable waterways.

Like I stated before, my parents built a house next to a lake and the contractor they hired cut some trees down that were 10 feet from the bank on the lake. My parents had to replace the trees or face fines from the Corps of Engineers,I am well aware of what they control......

Are you the freak that can't discuss matters without calling names and being a dick???????????????????

On corps lakes the corps controls the shores to a certain elevation, the crops land should have been a marked boundary on their plat.

 

[asterism]

Again it is HIS land......now trust me, I KNOW that a good "collectivist" like you hasn't a clue as to what "land ownership" means.....but tough shit. He OWNS it.

While it is his land, it's not his water and that seems to be the issue here. However, the EPA is very much out of control and they are the literal jack-booted thugs when they want to be.

It's not about the water, it's about the control.

By the EPA's thuggery actions that's true. However, the overall point is that this guy should not have diverted the flow of water without approval from the proper authorities and in the end not have built this pond in this way. It's his land but the water that flows through it is not his.

This didn't spring up out of nowhere, someone downstream raised a valid complaint I think. Water rights are a really really big deal in Wyoming.

 

[OKTexas]

The Army Corps of Engineers is in control of the banks of rivers, and lakes.. My Dad had to replace trees that were cut down when they built their house by the lake, if he failed to do so he would have fined also.

You really have no idea where this pond is and if he built a dam into the pond area.....so assumptions for opinions will make your argument weak at best....

Funny thing about the law in this country, I don't have to prove he didn't build a dam, you have to prove he did.

Yes indeed. I would like to see the topographical map of the area in dispute....or an aerial shot...

Would you have any idea how to read a topo map?

 

[OKTexas]

While it is his land, it's not his water and that seems to be the issue here. However, the EPA is very much out of control and they are the literal jack-booted thugs when they want to be.

It's not about the water, it's about the control.

By the EPA's thuggery actions that's true. However, the overall point is that this guy should not have diverted the flow of water without approval from the proper authorities and in the end not have built this pond in this way. It's his land but the water that flows through it is not his.

This didn't spring up out of nowhere, someone downstream raised a valid complaint I think. Water rights are a really really big deal in Wyoming.

Neither the EPA or the Corps have been given authority over anything other than navigable water ways. The mulatto messiah's EPA is trying to go around congress and expand their authority. The biggest scam they are using is sue and settle agreements with the enviorweenies, the EPA gives grants to environmental groups, they use the money to hire lawyers, they sue the EPA to get them to regulate this or that, then the EPA settles giving them everything they wanted and it's all wrapped up in a tidy little bundle called a court order. It's much easier than getting legislation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What makes this guy think that the water in a creek that has egress on his property is HIS water?

The deed to his land, state law, and the permit he got from the state?

Since I answered your question, I have one for you. What makes the EPA think the stream on his property is navigable?

That's a good point, this seems to be a technical issue with the EPA. That said, in this part of Wyoming agricultural interests outweigh someone's desire to build a pond. Water rights are a big deal.

Water rights are a state issue, Wyoming approved the pond knowing the law and the exact status of the water rights from the stream.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

While it is his land, it's not his water and that seems to be the issue here. However, the EPA is very much out of control and they are the literal jack-booted thugs when they want to be.

It's not about the water, it's about the control.

By the EPA's thuggery actions that's true. However, the overall point is that this guy should not have diverted the flow of water without approval from the proper authorities and in the end not have built this pond in this way. It's his land but the water that flows through it is not his.

This didn't spring up out of nowhere, someone downstream raised a valid complaint I think. Water rights are a really really big deal in Wyoming.

He had their approval, that is the entire point. The EPA jumped in after the fact and demanded that he comply with a bunch of regulations regarding dams when he built a cattle pond, which they, quite specifically, have no authority over.

 

[asterism]

It's not about the water, it's about the control.

By the EPA's thuggery actions that's true. However, the overall point is that this guy should not have diverted the flow of water without approval from the proper authorities and in the end not have built this pond in this way. It's his land but the water that flows through it is not his.

This didn't spring up out of nowhere, someone downstream raised a valid complaint I think. Water rights are a really really big deal in Wyoming.

Neither the EPA or the Corps have been given authority over anything other than navigable water ways. The mulatto messiah's EPA is trying to go around congress and expand their authority. The biggest scam they are using is sue and settle agreements with the enviorweenies, the EPA gives grants to environmental groups, they use the money to hire lawyers, they sue the EPA to get them to regulate this or that, then the EPA settles giving them everything they wanted and it's all wrapped up in a tidy little bundle called a court order. It's much easier than getting legislation.

I'll have to check into the details about the EPA and the Corps having authority only over waterways that are "navigable" so you might have a point there. However, this isn't Obama's EPA doing this. This is Nixon's EPA at work and they were emboldened when George H.W. Bush gave them EPA authority over wetlands.

I've always been curious about the chain of events that allowed the Corps of Engineers to be able to regulate all parts of the Chattahoochee River because it's "navigable" except when they build a dam that created Lake Lanier which made every point north of it non-navigable. It takes a Corps permit just to build a dock on that lake and they cut off permits in the 1990s. I saw a 2 bedroom shack sell for $600K because it had a dock and a permit while the mansion (actual mansion, 10 bedrooms) next door was bulldozed because the land was more valuable if it didn't have a house on it and could be combined with the property the shack and the dock were on to create a mansion with a dock on the lake.

That's literally how this situation worked out. The owners of the mansion were forced to destroy their "illegal" dock. They lasted a few years by "borrowing" the neighbors dock on the lake and then the county code enforcement started giving them code violations for illegal storage of their boat on their neighbor's dock. Then they rented the dock for a few years but the county enacted a rule outlawing that practice. So they bought the house next door and put their property (the boat) on their property (the house they owned next door). The Corps called that "circumventing" and ordered that the dock behind the shack be destroyed too. Clearly there was an agenda and obviously some other motives at play here. So the millionaires figured out a way to make this work and they destroyed their dream home, moved into the shack for two years, parked their boat on their dock the whole time, leveled the mansion next door, sold the property to a trust, bought the property from that trust, and rebuilt the mansion.

It's very convoluted for sure.

That said, water rights in Wyoming are a big deal. It is simply not a good idea to do anything to change the status quo of any flowing water and this person knows that. If he doesn't,