If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Man fined $75,000 per day for building something on his own property that he got a permit to build   (opposingviews.com) divider line 223
    More: Strange, EPA, Wyoming, ponds  
•       •       •

21976 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 5:12 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



223 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-21 03:45:01 PM  
The problem with trolling is you may catch something.
 
2014-03-21 03:57:32 PM  
You had a permit, but not the right permit.
 
2014-03-21 04:02:22 PM  
Outrage! This is an outrage, I tells ya!
 
2014-03-21 04:14:07 PM  
Pick up that can, citizen.
 
2014-03-21 04:18:58 PM  
You can't go around damming waterways, citizen.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-21 04:29:31 PM  
The EPA has delegated a lot of Clean Water Act permitting authority to the state of Wyoming. (epa.gov) That state permit is not just a worthless piece of paper when the feds come calling.
 
2014-03-21 04:29:56 PM  
 
2014-03-21 04:43:02 PM  

James!: You can't go around damming waterways, citizen.


please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to
 
2014-03-21 04:44:33 PM  
Trebuchet?

Please be a trebuchet.
 
2014-03-21 04:51:36 PM  

violentsalvation: James!: You can't go around damming waterways, citizen.

please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to


The EPA is not interested in your scrubs.
 
2014-03-21 04:53:16 PM  
FTFA: "I am not going to roll over and let [the government] tell me what I can do on my land. I followed the rules."


Favorite line in the article. I am sympathetic the the guy and hope that this all resolves in his favor, but those two phrases, side by side, are very funny
 
2014-03-21 05:01:27 PM  

edmo: The problem with trolling is you may catch something.


img27.imageshack.us
GOT ONE
 
2014-03-21 05:16:43 PM  
My wife and I built the pond together. We put our blood, sweat and tears into it.

I'm not surprised the EPA got involved.
 
2014-03-21 05:17:33 PM  
Horse trifecta in play.
 
2014-03-21 05:17:38 PM  
Oh, the geriatric Facebook fight in the comments.
 
2014-03-21 05:19:29 PM  

violentsalvation: James!: You can't go around damming waterways, citizen.

please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to


I know that you're gonna have it your way or nothing at all,
 
2014-03-21 05:19:57 PM  

DanZero: Non OV Link (from Fox News, not all that much better)


Even before I clicked, I was thinking "Man, I hope DanZero shows up". Thanks for taking the bullet for us every time. :)
 
2014-03-21 05:20:04 PM  
Didn't some guy get his property taken by the EPA for clearing a deadfall that was blocking a ditch?

/ sounds like the guy did his due diligence; but, didn't pay off the EPA guy with beer and steak
 
2014-03-21 05:20:21 PM  

macadamnut: My wife and I built the pond together. We put our blood, sweat and tears into it.

I'm not surprised the EPA got involved.


Putting water into it would have been a lot easier.
 
2014-03-21 05:22:31 PM  
don't even think of messing with any existing waterway.  Chances are, the US cops of engineers has jurisdiction over it and they don't want any of your nonsense.

if you want a stock tank, fill it with tap water.  You'll save in the long run.
 
2014-03-21 05:22:33 PM  
The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Should have just hired some undocumented Canadian beavers to build it for him.
 
2014-03-21 05:23:08 PM  
Somehow, I doubt this is just a pond that fills from rainfall on his land. If it's a waterway, you can't just dam it up and waste most of it through evaporation in order to give your horsies and duckies a drink, and afford your grandchildren an opportunity to drown. Wyoming averages only about 22 inches of rainfall a year; downstream water rights are a big farking deal. This might be just a bureaucratic SNAFU by the EPA, but it very well might not be, too.
 
2014-03-21 05:23:18 PM  

Bondith


macadamnut: My wife and I built the pond together. We put our blood, sweat and tears into it.

I'm not surprised the EPA got involved.

Putting water into it would have been a lot easier.


I'm pretty sure

i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2014-03-21 05:24:28 PM  

mbillips: Somehow, I doubt this is just a pond that fills from rainfall on his land. If it's a waterway, you can't just dam it up and waste most of it through evaporation in order to give your horsies and duckies a drink, and afford your grandchildren an opportunity to drown. Wyoming averages only about 22 inches of rainfall a year; downstream water rights are a big farking deal. This might be just a bureaucratic SNAFU by the EPA, but it very well might not be, too.


It's an oversized puddle. You're an idiot.
 
2014-03-21 05:24:32 PM  

James!: violentsalvation: James!: You can't go around damming waterways, citizen.

please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to

The EPA is not interested in your scrubs.


31.media.tumblr.com

/"Come on! You don't say 'Creep Creep' unless your quoting TLC."
 
2014-03-21 05:28:24 PM  
I'm a big fan of government oversight, AND the environment, but jesus, who cares about a stupid pond in Wyoming?

Maybe go after the industrial waste that's polluting the Gawanus Canal first.
 
2014-03-21 05:28:39 PM  

tricycleracer: The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Should have just hired some undocumented Canadian beavers to build it for him.


www.benzworld.org

Yeah, I vote for that.
 
2014-03-21 05:30:07 PM  

Hydra: mbillips: Somehow, I doubt this is just a pond that fills from rainfall on his land. If it's a waterway, you can't just dam it up and waste most of it through evaporation in order to give your horsies and duckies a drink, and afford your grandchildren an opportunity to drown. Wyoming averages only about 22 inches of rainfall a year; downstream water rights are a big farking deal. This might be just a bureaucratic SNAFU by the EPA, but it very well might not be, too.

It's an oversized puddle. You're an idiot.


From the Fox story:  The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, the EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other waterways.

If you dam up a creek, you're taking water from people downstream, no matter how small the pond. That's no big deal where I live, where we get 45 inches of rain a year. It's a Big Farking Deal out west. People have been shot for a lot less.
 
2014-03-21 05:31:06 PM  
While I feel for them...

FTA: "We put our blood, sweat and tears into it. It was our dream."

After this is all over, they really need to sit down with someone who can help him set better goals.
 
2014-03-21 05:31:11 PM  
People saying you can't just damn up a waterway are not paying attention.  In fact, you can do so if you have a permit.  This guy got a permit.  He did everything he could possibly do to make a legitimate stock pond.

I suspect that most people have never been to Wyoming.  The idea that the Federal government has any interest in a duck pond in Wyoming is zero.  This guy is just caught in the middle of politics he has no control over.
 
2014-03-21 05:33:00 PM  
I wonder who narc'ed on him?
 
2014-03-21 05:33:24 PM  

Boloxor the Insipid: I suspect that most people have never been to Wyoming.


Truer words were never spoken. Because, really, why would you?

/Yeah, yeah, I know. Yellowstone. Been there, saw the geyser.
 
2014-03-21 05:36:14 PM  
...he has an April 2012 letter form the Wyoming State Engineer's Office...

Letter != Permit

Permit:
www.nashville.gov

Letter:
www.christiansarkar.com
 
2014-03-21 05:38:29 PM  
"on his sprawling eight-acre Wyoming farm"

Didn't know they had farms in Wyoming, let alone farms that sprawl as much as eight acres.
 
2014-03-21 05:38:46 PM  
Damn. That's not a pond, that's a reservoir.
 
2014-03-21 05:39:58 PM  

trippdogg: ...he has an April 2012 letter form the Wyoming State Engineer's Office...

Letter != Permit

Permit:
[www.nashville.gov image 364x364]

Letter:
[www.christiansarkar.com image 392x533]


Well apparently the letter says that his permit is in good standing, which would certainly imply that a permit was issued. Given that it was dated April 2012, though, it's possible something has changed in the meantime that has invalidated the original permit.
 
2014-03-21 05:41:02 PM  

Boloxor the Insipid: People saying you can't just damn up a waterway are not paying attention.  In fact, you can do so if you have a permit.  This guy got a permit.  He did everything he could possibly do to make a legitimate stock pond.

I suspect that most people have never been to Wyoming.  The idea that the Federal government has any interest in a duck pond in Wyoming is zero.  This guy is just caught in the middle of politics he has no control over.


With no Corps permit and untreated water leaving his property he's probably screwed.
When you're dealing with existing water bodies and making changes to the watershed you need multiple permits.
He should have hired a civil engineer.
The he would at least have someone to blame
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-21 05:41:32 PM  
trippdogg

According to the Fox News story, the letter referenced a permit.

I infer he wrote the state saying "the EPA is hassling me over a dam even though you guys gave me a permit to build my stock pond." State engineer wrote back saying "your permit authorizes a stock pond."
 
2014-03-21 05:41:38 PM  

bangmaid: I'm a big fan of government oversight, AND the environment, but jesus, who cares about a stupid pond in Wyoming?

Maybe go after the industrial waste that's polluting the Gawanus Canal first.


/ya, they could do that, but most cooperations have scumbag lawyers that would tie up fines in litigation for years.  Much easier to pick on the little guy and squeeze the last dime out of him.
 
2014-03-21 05:42:02 PM  

Boloxor the Insipid: People saying you can't just damn up a waterway are not paying attention.  In fact, you can do so if you have a permit.  This guy got a permit.  He did everything he could possibly do to make a legitimate stock pond.

I suspect that most people have never been to Wyoming.  The idea that the Federal government has any interest in a duck pond in Wyoming is zero.  This guy is just caught in the middle of politics he has no control over.


Right, but there may have been terms of the permit that he's now violating - say, keeping fertilizer concentrations in the pond runoff below a certain amount or whatever. Without knowing the nature of the specific complaints from the EPA or the exact nature of what's he was permitted to do, it's hard for me to choose one side or another right now.
 
2014-03-21 05:43:04 PM  
The EPA found itself a golden pond.
 
2014-03-21 05:43:20 PM  

Boloxor the Insipid: People saying you can't just damn up a waterway are not paying attention.  In fact, you can do so if you have a permit.  This guy got a permit.  He did everything he could possibly do to make a legitimate stock pond.


As James! said, he apparently didn't have the right permit:  the EPA claims that he needed to get one from the Army Corps of Engineers, and did not.  If so, I feel bad for the guy:  it's hard to navigate the bureaucracy.  But it doesn't give him a legal right.
 
2014-03-21 05:45:28 PM  
I guess what's unclear here is whether the EPA is wrong for saying that he needed an ACE permit, or Wyoming State Engineer is wrong for saying that his permit was sufficient.
 
2014-03-21 05:45:41 PM  

bentley57: Damn. That's not a pond, that's a reservoir.


That's not a moon!
 
2014-03-21 05:45:42 PM  
Dude had a permit to build a stock pond. Damming a creek is a different matter altogether.
 
2014-03-21 05:45:49 PM  

James!: You can't go around damming waterways, citizen.


That. Diverting a waterway used to be grounds for shooting someone in the old west.

I like how they buried it deep in the article too.
 
2014-03-21 05:46:07 PM  
"This goes a lot further than a pond,"

No, no it doesn't. You're not a freedom fighter. This is a bureaucratic issue. Calm down.
 
2014-03-21 05:46:11 PM  
More like "support for Gayson" Not that its wrong, just saying. And the administrators are right, this kid is getting his ass kicked. Nothing will incite bullies and trolls like a young boy wearing a "girls" backpack. I give him a week before someone rips that pack off him and beats him up. Not saying its right, but you know how terrible young kids are these days.
 
2014-03-21 05:47:50 PM  
oops..wrong thread...can the mods move this to the "backpack" thread please...thanks.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-21 05:49:01 PM  
dstrick44

Apparently he is claiming an exemption from permit under CWA section 404(f)(1)(C). (epa.gov)

"the discharge of dredge or fill material ... for the purpose of construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches, or the maintenance of drainage ditches ... is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation".

If the exemption does not apply, he needed an ACE permit to build the water body. EPA says he has to prove to their satisfaction that his water body is within the exemption. He says EPA has to prove he is not subject to the exemption.
 
2014-03-21 05:50:05 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: James!: violentsalvation: James!: You can't go around damming waterways, citizen.

please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to

The EPA is not interested in your scrubs.

[31.media.tumblr.com image 245x170]

/"Come on! You don't say 'Creep Creep' unless your quoting TLC."


I ain't too proud to beg.
 
2014-03-21 05:50:47 PM  
We were accused of this about 15 years ago - we had been digging a giant hole since we needed a bunch of fill dirt (and we thought a pond might be nice someday in the future), but a storm cause the nearby creek to divert into our new "pond". Someone complained and EPA came out to investigate. PAIN in the rear.

We got out of any fines because we had the permits for the hole and it was obvious that the stream had diverted naturally, so we actually received permission to re-divert the creek until we were done with our hole and then divert it back into the hole afterwards. Woot!
 
2014-03-21 05:50:53 PM  

stevejovi: tricycleracer: The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Should have just hired some undocumented Canadian beavers to build it for him.

[www.benzworld.org image 198x134]

Yeah, I vote for that.


Had no idea beavers had such big lips.
 
2014-03-21 05:51:40 PM  
The EPA is telling my dad to break down an earth dam that was built by the wpa, which forms a pond just big enough to water our cattle. My dad will ignore the EPA until they start threatening big money. Fighting something till you go bankrupt is not smart.
 
2014-03-21 05:51:48 PM  

rynthetyn: Dude had a permit to build a stock pond. Damming a creek is a different matter altogether.


Damming a creek is a different matter.
 
2014-03-21 05:51:52 PM  

Doryphore: violentsalvation: James!: You can't go around damming waterways, citizen.

please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to

I know that you're gonna have it your way or nothing at all,

However, the EPA thinks you're moving too fast.

 
2014-03-21 05:52:43 PM  
I mean it's not like he put a breast cancer awareness ribbon in there.
 
2014-03-21 05:52:51 PM  

Bondith: macadamnut: My wife and I built the pond together. We put our blood, sweat and tears into it.

I'm not surprised the EPA got involved.

Putting water into it would have been a lot easier.


Or semen. What?
 
2014-03-21 05:55:16 PM  

mbillips: Somehow, I doubt this is just a pond that fills from rainfall on his land. If it's a waterway, you can't just dam it up and waste most of it through evaporation in order to give your horsies and duckies a drink, and afford your grandchildren an opportunity to drown. Wyoming averages only about 22 inches of rainfall a year; downstream water rights are a big farking deal. This might be just a bureaucratic SNAFU by the EPA, but it very well might not be, too.


Well, and the article says that the property owner claims to have a letter exempting him. Seems that should be easy to prove. Either the state has been given the authority to handle this and have given him the permit he needs or they haven't.
 
2014-03-21 05:56:59 PM  

Shostie: I ain't too proud to beg.


Please don't leave me, baby. Don't you go.
 
2014-03-21 05:57:37 PM  
Unfortunate, but the truth is that nobody really has their "own property."  Every scrap of land belongs to the government, and "ownership" is more like a bizarre stewardship wherein you pay taxes for the privilege of maintaining it for them.

People who think their "property" is a little kingdom of freedom from the government have no idea of reality.
 
2014-03-21 05:58:38 PM  

Ambitwistor: I guess what's unclear here is whether the EPA is wrong for saying that he needed an ACE permit, or Wyoming State Engineer is wrong for saying that his permit was sufficient.


The state engineer probably erred.  I didn't even know a person could get a permit to damn a creek up like this guy claims to have done.

We did have a similar case near me, where a couple dammed up a creek and did what they dubbed "restorative work" to sections of the creek.  It cost the state a lot of money to fix the problems they introduced.

Can't remember if they got the permits though.  This was years ago too.
 
2014-03-21 05:58:55 PM  

Boloxor the Insipid: People saying you can't just damn up a waterway are not paying attention.  In fact, you can do so if you have a permit.  This guy got a permit.  He did everything he could possibly do to make a legitimate stock pond.

I suspect that most people have never been to Wyoming.  The idea that the Federal government has any interest in a duck pond in Wyoming is zero.  This guy is just caught in the middle of politics he has no control over.


Yeah, it's not like waterways start there or anything.
 
2014-03-21 05:59:07 PM  
According to the Fox News story

Everything beyond these words is inconsequential.
 
2014-03-21 05:59:07 PM  
"This goes a lot further than a pond," he said. "It's about a person's rights. I have three little kids. I am not going to roll over and let [the government] tell me what I can do on my land.

DAMN RIGHT!

I followed the rules."

Oh, so you let the government tell you what you can do on your land.
 
2014-03-21 05:59:17 PM  
Landowner - I want to build a pond and dam a waterway and discharge water elsewhere on my property.

Government - OK, you can build a pond.

Government - Wait, your pond is fine. We got issues with the other stuff you did.

Landowner - But, but... I got a permit. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.
 
2014-03-21 06:00:52 PM  
This is why people who don't live in an HOA protected community deserve what they get!


/or something
 
2014-03-21 06:02:22 PM  
I finally found it, and I completely had the story crossed up.  I hate it when that happens.

The problem wasn't they put in the dams, they wanted to take the dams a former owner had put in.

http://www.longtom.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/OwensCr_RGarticle_ 07 1807.pdf
 
2014-03-21 06:03:16 PM  

James!: You had a permit, but not the right permit.


This.  He was allowed to create the pond, he wasn't allowed to dam the creek to provide water for it.
 
2014-03-21 06:04:59 PM  

jst3p: This is why people who don't live in an HOA protected community deserve what they get!


/or something


That's what I thought this was about after just reading the headline, and was ready for all kinds of HOA hatred, but then I RTFA...
 
2014-03-21 06:05:09 PM  
While I work for a local government (environmental) agency back east, I do admit that the permitting process can be arduous. Between the county, state, and feds, you may be right with one but not the others, and the onus is on the property owner.
 
2014-03-21 06:05:10 PM  
$75,000 per day

I am amused.
 
2014-03-21 06:05:27 PM  
I love reading stories from OpposingViews because they are totally unbiased.
 
2014-03-21 06:06:50 PM  
Hmmm... the Feds have the ultimate authority over "navigable waterways", which, under Federal law are defined as being waterways 3ft deep or deeper, and Congress has delegated authority over "navigable waterways" to the Army Corps of Engineers. *If* the stream in question is in that category, then Wyoming has to have permission from the ACE to grant permits to block said waterways, and also probably has to inform the ACE of such blockages. And the ACE will probably ask for an Environmental Impact Statement on said blockage that says, when all is said and done "No impact", before telling the state to allow said blockage. And good luck with getting the EPA to approve a blockage. If the state of Wyoming issued a permit, there were probably conditions attached that were not followed somewhere which is what is bringing the EPA down on these people.
 
2014-03-21 06:07:19 PM  
Anybody looking to post in this thread, please review:

dam = a structure that restricts water flow in order to create a reservoir, or the act of creating such a structure.

damn = what God does to you when you misuse the word "damn" to mean "dam."

Thank you.
 
2014-03-21 06:08:13 PM  

Arcturus72: jst3p: This is why people who don't live in an HOA protected community deserve what they get!


/or something

That's what I thought this was about after just reading the headline, and was ready for all kinds of HOA hatred, but then I RTFA...


There is a better joke to be made, but it isn't coming to me.
 
2014-03-21 06:10:19 PM  

jst3p: "This goes a lot further than a pond," he said. "It's about a person's rights. I have three little kids. I am not going to roll over and let [the government] tell me what I can do on my land.

DAMN RIGHT!

I followed the rules."

Oh, so you let the government tell you what you can do on your land.


And probably one of those people that works kids/parenting into everything like it's a badge of entitlement.
 
2014-03-21 06:10:20 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: oops..wrong thread...can the mods move this to the "backpack" thread please...thanks.


Nah, let's bully you for a bit first.  Can we get a mod to make all of his posts in pink for a day?
 
2014-03-21 06:11:52 PM  
Based on the article, I have a lot of sympathy.  But so far, we're only hearing his side of the story.

There are some very good reasons why you can't just build a dam anyplace you want, even if you own the property.  As to the "I have a permit", I could get a permit to build a house, but that wouldn't give me the right to damn up the nearby creek.  That permit may not say exactly what he wants us to think it says.  It may be issued by someone without authority.  It may have limitations which he isn't meeting.

To me, the #1 thing is "is it doing any harm".  If his damn is keeping water away from people downstream, that's an issue.  If it's unsafe, that's an issue.  If it is somehow actually causing ecological harm (fertilizer runoff?  I dunno) then that might be an issue.  If there is no actual harm, then I'm all in favor of leaving him alone.

I'm hoping I hear more about this story once both sides come out.
 
2014-03-21 06:13:59 PM  

boyvoyeur: Landowner - I want to build a pond and dam a waterway and discharge water elsewhere on my property.

State Government - OK, you can build a pond.

Federal Government - Wait, your pond is fine. We got issues with the other stuff you did damning of a creek you do not own, and that your pond water and runoff is going into other waterways that you also do not own

Landowner - But, but... I got a thought my permit was carte blanche. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.


FTFY
He rants on about rights and other right-wing talking points, neglecting that those around him have the right to not be affected by his "dream" pond.
 
2014-03-21 06:15:04 PM  

the_sidewinder: FTFA: "I am not going to roll over and let [the government] tell me what I can do on my land. I followed the rules."


Favorite line in the article. I am sympathetic the the guy and hope that this all resolves in his favor, but those two phrases, side by side, are very funny


I was thinking the same thing.
 
2014-03-21 06:15:29 PM  
What a man-made pond might look like in Wyoming:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29144010&nid=148
 
2014-03-21 06:15:56 PM  

Whatchoo Talkinbout: stevejovi: tricycleracer: The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Should have just hired some undocumented Canadian beavers to build it for him.

[www.benzworld.org image 198x134]

Yeah, I vote for that.

Had no idea beavers had such big lips.


Is this a Furry thing?  Go back to fchan!
 
2014-03-21 06:19:27 PM  
ClavellBCMI:
Hmmm... the Feds have the ultimate authority over "navigable waterways", which, under Federal law are defined as being waterways 3ft deep or deeper, and Congress has delegated authority over "navigable waterways" to the Army Corps of Engineers.

It's better than that.

The EPA has decided (with a suggested rule change) that any land which has water flowing over it, ever, is a "waterway" or a "wetland," and that they should have jurisdiction over it. Which means, effectively, every piece of land in the US. They decided to go about this by deciding that ditches and puddles less than three feet deep are "connected to navigable waterways." Even when they aren't. Maybe they're connected spiritually or something.

So when that rainwater from your roof flows into the low spot in the back yard, you're suddenly dealing with a "wetland" that's connected to a "navigable waterway."
 
2014-03-21 06:21:05 PM  

severedtoe: don't even think of messing with any existing waterway.  Chances are, the US cops of engineers has jurisdiction over it and they don't want any of your nonsense.

if you want a stock tank, fill it with tap water.  You'll save in the long run.


As much as the idea of a pond or creek on my property sounds nice, I would never buy such a house just because I know the headaches that can follow.

My buddy's land has really poor drainage...just a regular suburban lot with a muddy lawn. I'm waiting for the day the EPA declares it wetlands.
 
2014-03-21 06:21:17 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: Trebuchet?

Please be a trebuchet.


No. Just a dyke.
 
2014-03-21 06:22:55 PM  
Oh, I am so tired of hearing this stupid story splattered everywhere about this guy and his f*cking pond.
 
2014-03-21 06:24:08 PM  

ElLoco: What a man-made pond might look like in Wyoming:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29144010&nid=148


He's farked.
 
2014-03-21 06:25:01 PM  

mbillips: Boloxor the Insipid: I suspect that most people have never been to Wyoming.

Truer words were never spoken. Because, really, why would you?

/Yeah, yeah, I know. Yellowstone. Been there, saw the geyser.


And Jackson Hole.
 
2014-03-21 06:26:56 PM  

iheartscotch: Didn't some guy get his property taken by the EPA for clearing a deadfall that was blocking a ditch?

/ sounds like the guy did his due diligence; but, didn't pay off the EPA guy with beer and steak


Well, the article(s)haven't made it clear if he had the permits to dam a river or if the river he dammed has been undammed. Or if he had a permit to dammit all. Man bad pun.
 
2014-03-21 06:29:42 PM  

ClavellBCMI: Hmmm... the Feds have the ultimate authority over "navigable waterways", which, under Federal law are defined as being waterways 3ft deep or deeper, and Congress has delegated authority over "navigable waterways" to the Army Corps of Engineers. *If* the stream in question is in that category, then Wyoming has to have permission from the ACE to grant permits to block said waterways, and also probably has to inform the ACE of such blockages. And the ACE will probably ask for an Environmental Impact Statement on said blockage that says, when all is said and done "No impact", before telling the state to allow said blockage. And good luck with getting the EPA to approve a blockage. If the state of Wyoming issued a permit, there were probably conditions attached that were not followed somewhere which is what is bringing the EPA down on these people.


States are typically delegated authority to permit and regulate water quality and discharge.  Modification to Waters of the U.S., such as modifying the creek, generally remains the jurisdiction of the USACE.  He probably needs to file what's call a Joint Permit Application to document the project, which is then routed to the USACE and any other stakeholder agencies.
 
2014-03-21 06:30:02 PM  

Ambitwistor: I guess what's unclear here is whether the EPA is wrong for saying that he needed an ACE permit, or Wyoming State Engineer is wrong for saying that his permit was sufficient.


It was probably sufficient for what he asked for, not necessarily what he used it for
 
2014-03-21 06:31:43 PM  

dkulprit: iheartscotch: Didn't some guy get his property taken by the EPA for clearing a deadfall that was blocking a ditch?

/ sounds like the guy did his due diligence; but, didn't pay off the EPA guy with beer and steak

Well, the article(s)haven't made it clear if he had the permits to dam a river or if the river he dammed has been undammed. Or if he had a permit to dammit all. Man bad pun.


A bad pun at FARK is like premature ejaculation: you know it's coming, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Besides, if you hadn't, I would have.
 
2014-03-21 06:33:05 PM  

dstrick44: Boloxor the Insipid: People saying you can't just damn up a waterway are not paying attention.  In fact, you can do so if you have a permit.  This guy got a permit.  He did everything he could possibly do to make a legitimate stock pond.

I suspect that most people have never been to Wyoming.  The idea that the Federal government has any interest in a duck pond in Wyoming is zero.  This guy is just caught in the middle of politics he has no control over.

With no Corps permit and untreated water leaving his property he's probably screwed.
When you're dealing with existing water bodies and making changes to the watershed you need multiple permits.
He should have hired a civil engineer.
The he would at least have someone to blame


I agree with you.    You probably would need several permits and any time in this current era you are dealing with water you would need help to stay in bounds.

Granted with Opposing Views website we get almost no correct information.    But the guy is probably screwed.    "I went and got me a dang permit ! "  isn't really a defense for anything these days.
 
2014-03-21 06:34:25 PM  
Well, he's welcome to try and track down the water that was on his property the moment he signed the papers to become the owner.
 
2014-03-21 06:34:54 PM  
My guess is that he couldn't meet the requirements in time and at $75k a day, his only hope was to fight it or else he'd go bankrupt.
 
2014-03-21 06:35:36 PM  

dkulprit: iheartscotch: Didn't some guy get his property taken by the EPA for clearing a deadfall that was blocking a ditch?

/ sounds like the guy did his due diligence; but, didn't pay off the EPA guy with beer and steak

Well, the article(s)haven't made it clear if he had the permits to dam a river or if the river he dammed has been undammed. Or if he had a permit to dammit all. Man bad pun.


The one ElLoco linked did.

""I acquired a stock pond reservoir permit," Johnson said.

He had a permit to build a pond, but makes no mention if he had the permits to divert or dam a creek running through his property.

Water rights is serious business, especially out west.
 
2014-03-21 06:35:37 PM  

meat0918: ElLoco: What a man-made pond might look like in Wyoming:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29144010&nid=148

He's farked.


FWIW... I think I've found the guy's house on Googlemaps. It looks like there's maybe 3 miles of headwater prior to the pond, tops, and if the creek was running full bore under a lot of snow melt, it would almost be too wide to hop across.

Also, across the road, there's a much larger man-made pond with a much larger dam on a decent sized (different) waterway sourced by miles of multiple branching tributaries... maybe half a mile or so away from his.
 
2014-03-21 06:36:17 PM  

dkulprit: iheartscotch: Didn't some guy get his property taken by the EPA for clearing a deadfall that was blocking a ditch?

/ sounds like the guy did his due diligence; but, didn't pay off the EPA guy with beer and steak

Well, the article(s)haven't made it clear if he had the permits to dam a river or if the river he dammed has been undammed. Or if he had a permit to dammit all. Man bad pun.


Here in MI if you use a backhoe to clear beach grasses you could go to jail, I can't imagine what they would do to you if you dammed a waterway. I have to imagine the only way you get that permit (a dam) is if there is a hydroelectric generator or 20 in the mix as well.
 
2014-03-21 06:37:44 PM  

mbillips: Somehow, I doubt this is just a pond that fills from rainfall on his land. If it's a waterway, you can't just dam it up and waste most of it through evaporation in order to give your horsies and duckies a drink, and afford your grandchildren an opportunity to drown. Wyoming averages only about 22 inches of rainfall a year; downstream water rights are a big farking deal. This might be just a bureaucratic SNAFU by the EPA, but it very well might not be, too.


CoE was intended to support NAVIGABLE water ways...like most government functions, the CoE and EPA aren't content with their current calling and are constantly seeking to do more and more.   The courts have repeatedly biatch slapped them down multiple times for getting involved in creeks and streams that aren't able to be utilized for military or commercial water transportation.
 
2014-03-21 06:37:48 PM  

Yakk: dkulprit: iheartscotch: Didn't some guy get his property taken by the EPA for clearing a deadfall that was blocking a ditch?

/ sounds like the guy did his due diligence; but, didn't pay off the EPA guy with beer and steak

Well, the article(s)haven't made it clear if he had the permits to dam a river or if the river he dammed has been undammed. Or if he had a permit to dammit all. Man bad pun.

Here in MI if you use a backhoe to clear beach grasses you could go to jail, I can't imagine what they would do to you if you dammed a waterway. I have to imagine the only way you get that permit (a dam) is if there is a hydroelectric generator or 20 in the mix as well.


You can't even use a rake last I knew.
 
2014-03-21 06:38:15 PM  

jst3p: This is why people who don't live in an HOA protected community deserve what they get!


/or something


HOA's Ass
 
2014-03-21 06:38:44 PM  

ElLoco: meat0918: ElLoco: What a man-made pond might look like in Wyoming:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29144010&nid=148

He's farked.


FWIW... I think I've found the guy's house on Googlemaps


link?
 
2014-03-21 06:42:20 PM  

Eponymous: mbillips: Somehow, I doubt this is just a pond that fills from rainfall on his land. If it's a waterway, you can't just dam it up and waste most of it through evaporation in order to give your horsies and duckies a drink, and afford your grandchildren an opportunity to drown. Wyoming averages only about 22 inches of rainfall a year; downstream water rights are a big farking deal. This might be just a bureaucratic SNAFU by the EPA, but it very well might not be, too.

CoE was intended to support NAVIGABLE water ways...like most government functions, the CoE and EPA aren't content with their current calling and are constantly seeking to do more and more.   The courts have repeatedly biatch slapped them down multiple times for getting involved in creeks and streams that aren't able to be utilized for military or commercial water transportation.


How exactly did they get biatchslapped? The courts and EPA administrative panels are lateral to each other in hierarchy.
 
2014-03-21 06:43:20 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Bit'O'Gristle: oops..wrong thread...can the mods move this to the "backpack" thread please...thanks.

Nah, let's bully you for a bit first.  Can we get a mod to make all of his posts in pink for a day?


Second this
 
2014-03-21 06:44:06 PM  

jst3p: ElLoco: meat0918: ElLoco: What a man-made pond might look like in Wyoming:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29144010&nid=148

He's farked.


FWIW... I think I've found the guy's house on Googlemaps

link?


I'm not going to give up the guy's address or location, if it's even his for certain... it's a forum rules violation at the least. I used names, the town, and visual cues from various vids to narrow down housing and landmarks.
 
2014-03-21 06:45:18 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: Bondith

macadamnut: My wife and I built the pond together. We put our blood, sweat and tears into it.

I'm not surprised the EPA got involved.

Putting water into it would have been a lot easier.


I'm pretty sure

[i3.kym-cdn.com image 480x360]


I have one job.  It's a stupid job, but I'm going to do it, dammit.
 
2014-03-21 06:45:42 PM  

rynthetyn: Dude had a permit to build a stock pond. Damming a creek is a different matter altogether.


umm...that's how you build stock ponds.   You do realize there is both an inflow to the pond and outflow on the dam, right?  Water comes into a small 3-5 foot pool and flows out on the other side.   The evaporation is minimal, the impact from livestock drinking or walking in it is zero since they would have been drinking or walking thru the creek anyway.   The only real impact is 5-10k gallons of water.  If that's a problem, just have him dump that much water into the creek and call it even.
 
2014-03-21 06:45:58 PM  

iheartscotch: Didn't some guy get his property taken by the EPA for clearing a deadfall that was blocking a ditch?

/ sounds like the guy did his due diligence; but, didn't pay off the EPA guy with beer and steak


It turned out the freegan EPA guy was dickless.
 
2014-03-21 06:46:45 PM  

ElLoco: How exactly did they get biatchslapped? The courts and EPA administrative panels are lateral to each other in hierarchy.


Google is a wonderful thing, learn how to use it.
 
2014-03-21 06:47:54 PM  

ElLoco: I'm not going to give up the guy's address or location, if it's even his for certain... it's a forum rules violation at the least. I used names, the town, and visual cues from various vids to narrow down housing and landmarks.


Also, the terrain mapping on Google isn't updated at that location to include the constructed pond, but the area cleared is pretty evident and sits in the proper orientation from the housing structures.
 
2014-03-21 06:48:04 PM  

toadist: dstrick44: Boloxor the Insipid: People saying you can't just damn up a waterway are not paying attention.  In fact, you can do so if you have a permit.  This guy got a permit.  He did everything he could possibly do to make a legitimate stock pond.

I suspect that most people have never been to Wyoming.  The idea that the Federal government has any interest in a duck pond in Wyoming is zero.  This guy is just caught in the middle of politics he has no control over.

With no Corps permit and untreated water leaving his property he's probably screwed.
When you're dealing with existing water bodies and making changes to the watershed you need multiple permits.
He should have hired a civil engineer.
The he would at least have someone to blame

I agree with you.    You probably would need several permits and any time in this current era you are dealing with water you would need help to stay in bounds.

Granted with Opposing Views website we get almost no correct information.    But the guy is probably screwed.    "I went and got me a dang permit ! "  isn't really a defense for anything these days.


And if he's messing with a stream, it probably goes beyond just getting a permit...there is potentially the need for performing mitigation work, like restoring another section of the stream.  And that's WITH a justifiable purpose and need to do the work in the first place.
 
2014-03-21 06:48:17 PM  

ElLoco: jst3p: ElLoco: meat0918: ElLoco: What a man-made pond might look like in Wyoming:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29144010&nid=148

He's farked.


FWIW... I think I've found the guy's house on Googlemaps

link?

I'm not going to give up the guy's address or location, if it's even his for certain... it's a forum rules violation at the least. I used names, the town, and visual cues from various vids to narrow down housing and landmarks.


Well, the EPA listing of address is wrong anyways
 
2014-03-21 06:48:18 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Oh, I am so tired of hearing this stupid story splattered everywhere about this guy and his f*cking pond.


Then click on the red x in the corner
 
2014-03-21 06:48:55 PM  

Bondith


I have one job. It's a stupid job, but I'm going to do it, dammit.


Well, then by golly I will hinder you no further. Go, go!

:-)
 
2014-03-21 06:51:26 PM  

Ambitwistor: Boloxor the Insipid: People saying you can't just damn up a waterway are not paying attention.  In fact, you can do so if you have a permit.  This guy got a permit.  He did everything he could possibly do to make a legitimate stock pond.

As James! said, he apparently didn't have the right permit:  the EPA claims that he needed to get one from the Army Corps of Engineers, and did not.  If so, I feel bad for the guy:  it's hard to navigate the bureaucracy.  But it doesn't give him a legal right.


I agree it doesnt give him a legal right, but it does mean he should get the maximum leeway allowed.  75,000 a day is not exactly a lot of leeway.
 
2014-03-21 06:51:34 PM  

iheartscotch: Didn't some guy get his property taken by the EPA for clearing a deadfall that was blocking a ditch?

/ sounds like the guy did his due diligence; but, didn't pay off the EPA guy with beer and steak


The EPA is your HOA board with a badge.  They will make their own rules up. and sue you with lawyers paid with your own dues.
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2014-03-21 06:53:10 PM  

Eponymous: rynthetyn: Dude had a permit to build a stock pond. Damming a creek is a different matter altogether.

umm...that's how you build stock ponds.   You do realize there is both an inflow to the pond and outflow on the dam, right?  Water comes into a small 3-5 foot pool and flows out on the other side.   The evaporation is minimal, the impact from livestock drinking or walking in it is zero since they would have been drinking or walking thru the creek anyway.   The only real impact is 5-10k gallons of water.  If that's a problem, just have him dump that much water into the creek and call it even.


This is his small 3-5 foot pool

i457.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-21 06:56:07 PM  

ElLoco: meat0918: ElLoco: What a man-made pond might look like in Wyoming:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29144010&nid=148

He's farked.

FWIW... I think I've found the guy's house on Googlemaps. It looks like there's maybe 3 miles of headwater prior to the pond, tops, and if the creek was running full bore under a lot of snow melt, it would almost be too wide to hop across.

Also, across the road, there's a much larger man-made pond with a much larger dam on a decent sized (different) waterway sourced by miles of multiple branching tributaries... maybe half a mile or so away from his.


See what you're missing here chief is that its not illegal to dam a river. Its illegal to dam a river without having your plans approved by the Army Corp of Engineers first which is exactly what this guy did. Are you able to appreciate that distinction? Since you're in this thread crying about the big ole' meanies at the EPA I'm going to guess no.
 
2014-03-21 06:56:33 PM  

Eponymous: mbillips: Somehow, I doubt this is just a pond that fills from rainfall on his land. If it's a waterway, you can't just dam it up and waste most of it through evaporation in order to give your horsies and duckies a drink, and afford your grandchildren an opportunity to drown. Wyoming averages only about 22 inches of rainfall a year; downstream water rights are a big farking deal. This might be just a bureaucratic SNAFU by the EPA, but it very well might not be, too.

CoE was intended to support NAVIGABLE water ways...like most government functions, the CoE and EPA aren't content with their current calling and are constantly seeking to do more and more.   The courts have repeatedly biatch slapped them down multiple times for getting involved in creeks and streams that aren't able to be utilized for military or commercial water transportation.


ThisEPA are a bunch of communist c^^ksuckers
 
2014-03-21 06:58:00 PM  

mbillips: If you dam up a creek, you're taking water from people downstream, no matter how small the pond.


I hear it will all make its way down eventually.  You arent taking it.  You are just delaying that gallon of water a little bit.   Unless he dammed himself Lake Erie, they will get the water.   A horse is still going to drink a gallon of water that will not make it downstream..
 
2014-03-21 06:58:23 PM  

ScaryBottles: ElLoco: meat0918: ElLoco: What a man-made pond might look like in Wyoming:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29144010&nid=148

He's farked.

FWIW... I think I've found the guy's house on Googlemaps. It looks like there's maybe 3 miles of headwater prior to the pond, tops, and if the creek was running full bore under a lot of snow melt, it would almost be too wide to hop across.

Also, across the road, there's a much larger man-made pond with a much larger dam on a decent sized (different) waterway sourced by miles of multiple branching tributaries... maybe half a mile or so away from his.

See what you're missing here chief is that its not illegal to dam a river. Its illegal to dam a river without having your plans approved by the Army Corp of Engineers first which is exactly what this guy did. Are you able to appreciate that distinction? Since you're in this thread crying about the big ole' meanies at the EPA I'm going to guess no.


Don't be a farktard. I'm not approving or disapproving of anything... simply describing the area where I suspect the pond is located. Chief.
 
2014-03-21 07:00:47 PM  

Eponymous: rynthetyn: Dude had a permit to build a stock pond. Damming a creek is a different matter altogether.

umm...that's how you build stock ponds.


upload.wikimedia.org

Sorry bubbi but I live in Texas and if we had to rely on existing water sources to fill our stock ponds 98% of the cattle in this state would be dead.
 
2014-03-21 07:01:55 PM  

ScaryBottles: Since you're in this thread crying about the big ole' meanies at the EPA I'm going to guess no.


... and since you're still here, Chief... point out this part for me if you don't mind.
 
2014-03-21 07:04:26 PM  

Semantic Warrior: boyvoyeur: Landowner - I want to build a pond and dam a waterway and discharge water elsewhere on my property.

State Government - OK, you can build a pond.

Federal Government - Wait, your pond is fine. We got issues with the other stuff you did damning of a creek you do not own, and that your pond water and runoff is going into other waterways that you also do not own

Landowner - But, but... I got a thought my permit was carte blanche. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.

FTFY
He rants on about rights and other right-wing talking points, neglecting that those around him have the right to not be affected by his "dream" pond.


Please post how other people are affected.
 
2014-03-21 07:05:16 PM  

macadamnut: My wife and I built the pond together. We put our blood, sweat and tears into it.

I'm not surprised the EPA got involved.


It does sound unsanitary at the very least.
 
2014-03-21 07:05:38 PM  

ElLoco: ScaryBottles: ElLoco: meat0918: ElLoco: What a man-made pond might look like in Wyoming:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29144010&nid=148

He's farked.

FWIW... I think I've found the guy's house on Googlemaps. It looks like there's maybe 3 miles of headwater prior to the pond, tops, and if the creek was running full bore under a lot of snow melt, it would almost be too wide to hop across.

Also, across the road, there's a much larger man-made pond with a much larger dam on a decent sized (different) waterway sourced by miles of multiple branching tributaries... maybe half a mile or so away from his.

See what you're missing here chief is that its not illegal to dam a river. Its illegal to dam a river without having your plans approved by the Army Corp of Engineers first which is exactly what this guy did. Are you able to appreciate that distinction? Since you're in this thread crying about the big ole' meanies at the EPA I'm going to guess no.

Don't be a farktard. I'm not approving or disapproving of anything... simply describing the area where I suspect the pond is located. Chief.


Then why mention the dam across the street unless you were implying the EPA was somehow being unfair? Why not just make note of the pond's location and leave it at that? Sorry guy passive aggressive derp is still derp.
 
2014-03-21 07:05:38 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: mbillips: If you dam up a creek, you're taking water from people downstream, no matter how small the pond.

I hear it will all make its way down eventually.  You arent taking it.  You are just delaying that gallon of water a little bit.   Unless he dammed himself Lake Erie, they will get the water.   A horse is still going to drink a gallon of water that will not make it downstream..


It creates a larger surface area for evaporation.
 
2014-03-21 07:07:06 PM  

Eponymous: rynthetyn: Dude had a permit to build a stock pond. Damming a creek is a different matter altogether.

umm...that's how you build stock ponds.


Not only are there other means, but the damming of the creek is exactly what he needed ACE authorization for but didn't have... he wants to be exempted from that and argues that neglecting how and where run off from his pond is coursed.
 
2014-03-21 07:07:30 PM  

ElLoco: ScaryBottles: Since you're in this thread crying about the big ole' meanies at the EPA I'm going to guess no.

... and since you're still here, Chief... point out this part for me if you don't mind.


You aren't fooling anyone Mr. FARK IndependentTM
 
2014-03-21 07:07:34 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: Semantic Warrior: boyvoyeur: Landowner - I want to build a pond and dam a waterway and discharge water elsewhere on my property.

State Government - OK, you can build a pond.

Federal Government - Wait, your pond is fine. We got issues with the other stuff you did damning of a creek you do not own, and that your pond water and runoff is going into other waterways that you also do not own

Landowner - But, but... I got a thought my permit was carte blanche. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.

FTFY
He rants on about rights and other right-wing talking points, neglecting that those around him have the right to not be affected by his "dream" pond.

Please post how other people are affected.


My money is someone downstream of him noticed their water flow interrupted or otherwise disturbed, and went and ratted him out.

And as mentioned, water rights are serious farking business in the Western states.
 
2014-03-21 07:07:52 PM  

Ambitwistor: I guess what's unclear here is whether the EPA is wrong for saying that he needed an ACE permit, or Wyoming State Engineer is wrong for saying that his permit was sufficient.


I can tell you who would win in a fight...

/Supremacy Clause
//EPA
///Slashies
 
2014-03-21 07:09:35 PM  

ScaryBottles: Then why mention the dam across the street unless you were implying the EPA was somehow being unfair? Why not just make note of the pond's location and leave it at that? Sorry guy passive aggressive derp is still derp.


Ok... fair enough. I can see how it might look like that. That was not my intent.
 
2014-03-21 07:09:42 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: Semantic Warrior: boyvoyeur: Landowner - I want to build a pond and dam a waterway and discharge water elsewhere on my property.

State Government - OK, you can build a pond.

Federal Government - Wait, your pond is fine. We got issues with the other stuff you did damning of a creek you do not own, and that your pond water and runoff is going into other waterways that you also do not own

Landowner - But, but... I got a thought my permit was carte blanche. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.

FTFY
He rants on about rights and other right-wing talking points, neglecting that those around him have the right to not be affected by his "dream" pond.

Please post how other people are affected.


FTA:  According to the federal agency, Johnson violated the Clean Water Act by damming a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. It also claims that pond water and runoff are being discharged into other waterways.
 
2014-03-21 07:10:02 PM  

CourtroomWolf: Nutsac_Jim: mbillips: If you dam up a creek, you're taking water from people downstream, no matter how small the pond.

I hear it will all make its way down eventually.  You arent taking it.  You are just delaying that gallon of water a little bit.   Unless he dammed himself Lake Erie, they will get the water.   A horse is still going to drink a gallon of water that will not make it downstream..

It creates a larger surface area for evaporation.



Evaporation means less drought
 
2014-03-21 07:10:10 PM  

ZAZ: dstrick44

Apparently he is claiming an exemption from permit under CWA section 404(f)(1)(C). (epa.gov)

"the discharge of dredge or fill material ... for the purpose of construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches, or the maintenance of drainage ditches ... is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation".

If the exemption does not apply, he needed an ACE permit to build the water body. EPA says he has to prove to their satisfaction that his water body is within the exemption. He says EPA has to prove he is not subject to the exemption.


IF you qualify for an exception, then it would be up to you to prove it.

As it stands now, the EPA can fine him without ever taking him to court.  He would have to work with them to prove he qualifies for the exception to no long be financially responsible for the fines.
 
2014-03-21 07:12:10 PM  

Pattuq: Unfortunate, but the truth is that nobody really has their "own property."  Every scrap of land belongs to the government, and "ownership" is more like a bizarre stewardship wherein you pay taxes for the privilege of maintaining it for them.

People who think their "property" is a little kingdom of freedom from the government have no idea of reality.


This is why I hate property taxes and emanate domain.  No one truly owns land in the US.  They are just renting it from the government.
 
2014-03-21 07:15:35 PM  

iheartscotch: Didn't some guy get his property taken by the EPA for clearing a deadfall that was blocking a ditch?

/ sounds like the guy did his due diligence; but, didn't pay off the EPA guy with beer and steak


What can you expect from an agency that hires this guy...

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-21 07:21:09 PM  

CourtroomWolf: Nutsac_Jim: mbillips: If you dam up a creek, you're taking water from people downstream, no matter how small the pond.

I hear it will all make its way down eventually.  You arent taking it.  You are just delaying that gallon of water a little bit.   Unless he dammed himself Lake Erie, they will get the water.   A horse is still going to drink a gallon of water that will not make it downstream..

It creates a larger surface area for evaporation.


And the pond stores up water when it rains too quickly.  This means more steady supply of water downstream.  More usable water.
 
2014-03-21 07:26:52 PM  

meat0918: Nutsac_Jim:  
My money is someone downstream of him noticed their water flow interrupted or otherwise disturbed, and went and ratted him out.

And as mentioned, water rights are serious farking business in the Western states.


I agree.   He probably blocked it to fill it as soon as possible rather than keeping his head low.
 
2014-03-21 07:27:02 PM  
Little info really... Need to read the issued permit. But just off the article it appears he permitted for the pond. There is many ways to get water into a pond. I don't think I'm out on a limb when I say diverting water from a creek or river (or even pumping from it) is permissible without another authorization. I live near Lake Erie and an acquaintance near me put a sump pump in the county ditch (less than one mile from LE) after the thaw to help fill his pond. He got a talking to but no fines. He just thought, hell, it's only ditch water. My BIL filled his pond the easy way- watched it. It took a couple years, but it's a full acre and 25 feet deep on one end. I permitted for a pond when we built but I haven't dug it yet. Nothing in my paperwork suggests I can use any means to get water. It just allows for the size, location, shape, and depth.
/$.02
 
2014-03-21 07:27:40 PM  

tkrispin: While I work for a local government (environmental) agency back east, I do admit that the permitting process can be arduous. Between the county, state, and feds, you may be right with one but not the others, and the onus is on the property owner.


Which is something I would like to see changed.  How the process *SHOULD* work:

You go down to the local office, you tell them what you want to do.  Whatever it is, from opening a lemonade stand to building a nuclear plant, requires *ONE* permit--the onus is on them to pass it along to any other entities that need to be involved.  They have a reasonable period of time to either issue it, deny it or request modifications or additional information--and a failure to act is an approval.  They are permitted reasonable inspections of ongoing work and a reasonable notice period--but again, failure = approval.

cameroncrazy1984: It was probably sufficient for what he asked for, not necessarily what he used it for


This.  I think he requested a permit for only part of the job, likely knowing he couldn't get the rest.
 
2014-03-21 07:28:18 PM  
He's not being fined for building the pond. He is fined for damming the stream which also flows across other properties and is needed for drainage and water management.
 
2014-03-21 07:29:46 PM  

Semantic Warrior: FTA:  According to the federal agency, Johnson violated the Clean Water Act by damming a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. It also claims that pond water and runoff are being discharged into other waterways.


This one was interesting.   I cant tell whether it is just someone downstream trying to pull some shiat though.

What is he doing, damming it up, and pumping the water up over a hill so it goes to his brothers property?
 
2014-03-21 07:30:46 PM  

bangmaid: I'm a big fan of government oversight, AND the environment, but jesus, who cares about a stupid pond in Wyoming?

Maybe go after the industrial waste that's polluting the Gawanus Canal first.


http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/fyi-what-would-happen- if -you-drank-water-gowanus-canal

I see these new people to Brooklyn saying how bad the Gowanus canal is and then I think back to 1987 when I was there and say you guys are farking lucky.
 
2014-03-21 07:31:58 PM  
If any of you wonder why it would be a good idea to disband the EPA, this is one fine example.
 
2014-03-21 07:36:30 PM  

proteus_b: If any of you wonder why it would be a good idea to disband the EPA, this is one fine example.


So are you a functioning retard, or did someone forget to monitor your internet use?
 
2014-03-21 07:39:45 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: bangmaid: I'm a big fan of government oversight, AND the environment, but jesus, who cares about a stupid pond in Wyoming?

Maybe go after the industrial waste that's polluting the Gawanus Canal first.

/ya, they could do that, but most cooperations have scumbag lawyers that would tie up fines in litigation for years.  Much easier to pick on the little guy and squeeze the last dime out of him.


bangmaid: Because doing two things at once isn't possible?

Bit'O'Gristle: Yep the EPA exists to make money for the government. It all goes back to Nixon, first he invented the framework for Obamacare, then he created the EPA. Damn "small government" Republicans are doing a great job aren't they?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-21 07:41:55 PM  
Whatever it is, from opening a lemonade stand to building a nuclear plant, requires *ONE* permit--the onus is on them to pass it along to any other entities that need to be involved.

This reminds me of Feynman's story about agreeing to give a talk for a fee, but with a strict limit on the number of times he could be asked for his signature on paperwork. They couldn't get him a check with only a dozen of his signatures until somebody bent a rule.
 
2014-03-21 07:41:57 PM  

CourtroomWolf: Nutsac_Jim: mbillips: If you dam up a creek, you're taking water from people downstream, no matter how small the pond.

I hear it will all make its way down eventually.  You arent taking it.  You are just delaying that gallon of water a little bit.   Unless he dammed himself Lake Erie, they will get the water.   A horse is still going to drink a gallon of water that will not make it downstream..

It creates a larger surface area for evaporation.


Increased erosion downstream from his pretty pretty little dam.
 
2014-03-21 07:44:04 PM  

macadamnut: My wife and I built the pond together. We put our blood, sweat and tears into it.

I'm not surprised the EPA got involved.


I can think of a lot worse things they could have put into it.
 
2014-03-21 07:46:01 PM  

proteus_b: If any of you wonder why it would be a good idea to disband the EPA, this is one fine example.


Er, no.  But a pond in the middle of Wyoming?  C'mon.  They mean to say that there isn't at least 1 or 2 *slightly* larger polluters and creators of environmental nastiness they couldn't go after, so it's some poor schlub with a pond?  Talk about going for the low-hanging fruit.

Hang around any facility that processes petrochemicals and/or polymers for a week or two.  Guaranteed you'll find something far more more worthy of attention than a freakin duck pond.  Bit harder of a target to hit with all those lawyers standing in front I realize, but that's supposed to be the damn job.
 
2014-03-21 07:53:27 PM  

IrishBlunder: proteus_b: If any of you wonder why it would be a good idea to disband the EPA, this is one fine example.

Er, no.  But a pond in the middle of Wyoming?  C'mon.  They mean to say that there isn't at least 1 or 2 *slightly* larger polluters and creators of environmental nastiness they couldn't go after, so it's some poor schlub with a pond?  Talk about going for the low-hanging fruit.

Hang around any facility that processes petrochemicals and/or polymers for a week or two.  Guaranteed you'll find something far more more worthy of attention than a freakin duck pond.  Bit harder of a target to hit with all those lawyers standing in front I realize, but that's supposed to be the damn job.


I forgot the EPA is only allowed to do one thing at a time, so going after this guy entirely prevents them from doing anything else ever.

Or in a rational world one arm of the org goes after locals, and the other goes after corps, though I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say corps are protected by local pols where as yahoo farmers are not.
 
2014-03-21 07:56:29 PM  

gravy chugging cretin.: CourtroomWolf: Nutsac_Jim: mbillips: If you dam up a creek, you're taking water from people downstream, no matter how small the pond.

I hear it will all make its way down eventually.  You arent taking it.  You are just delaying that gallon of water a little bit.   Unless he dammed himself Lake Erie, they will get the water.   A horse is still going to drink a gallon of water that will not make it downstream..

It creates a larger surface area for evaporation.

Increased erosion downstream from his pretty pretty little dam.


How is there more erosion downstream?  The guy in front of you said there would be less water.

Make up your minds.


// I never knew ponds magically make more water.
 
2014-03-21 07:57:01 PM  
As usual the Fox news article is lacking. The government enforcing laws that were clearly broken is now something awful that we have to endure. Thanks, Obama.

The Republican senators getting involved suggest that the EPA is making an assumption.

"Fairness and due process require the EPA base its compliance order on more than an assumption," they wrote. "Instead of treating Mr. Johnson as guilty until he proves his innocence by demonstrating his entitlement to the Clean Water Act section 404 (f)(1)(C) stock pond exemption, EPA should make its case that a dam was built and that the Section 404 exemption does not apply."

From:  http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/03/15/wyoming-man-defiantly-fights-p o ssible-75000-a-day-epa-fine-for-building-backyard-pond-106461

However, he admitted he built a damn.

"Johnson's pond was created with a dam on a nearby creek in Fort Bridger, which he built about five years ago."

From:  http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29144010&nid=148

But the most important derp in the entire situation is of course from Andy himself...

"I think they're trying to gain jurisdiction," Johnson said. "They're trying to see if they can run over me and then they will get into everyone's irrigation ditch and stock ponds throughout not only Wyoming, but the United States.

Also from:  http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29144010&nid=148


So basically, this Fox news creating controversy where there is none. You're not allowed to damn a waterway, this man clearly did. Then he claimed the dam he built isn't a dam, because is doesn't stop the water it just delays it, lets it evaporate, allows it to collect animal feces, and then lets it flow freely into other waterways. Which is also part of the EPA's complaint.

"The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, the EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other waterways."
 
2014-03-21 08:00:44 PM  

James!: You had a permit, but not the right permit.


He had the right permit. Look at that word navigable in the clean water act. The EPA tries to pretend it doesnt exist. Now they are playing connect the dots to claim this creek is a tributary of a tributary of navigable waters. By this logic my toilet is navigable water.
 
2014-03-21 08:00:56 PM  

Loren: tkrispin: While I work for a local government (environmental) agency back east, I do admit that the permitting process can be arduous. Between the county, state, and feds, you may be right with one but not the others, and the onus is on the property owner.

Which is something I would like to see changed.  How the process *SHOULD* work:

You go down to the local office, you tell them what you want to do.  Whatever it is, from opening a lemonade stand to building a nuclear plant, requires *ONE* permit--the onus is on them to pass it along to any other entities that need to be involved.  They have a reasonable period of time to either issue it, deny it or request modifications or additional information--and a failure to act is an approval.  They are permitted reasonable inspections of ongoing work and a reasonable notice period--but again, failure = approval.

cameroncrazy1984: It was probably sufficient for what he asked for, not necessarily what he used it for

This.  I think he requested a permit for only part of the job, likely knowing he couldn't get the rest.


Yeah that would help things, I don't know if that would require more employees to implement though. And everyone's definition of "reasonable" tends to differ. The state will ask us about problems we delt with 2 years before. My county has over 800,000 people, so I don't know how your solution would scale. Worth a try though.

Oh and in this case (most cases actually), each day of noncompliance is a new offense and find apply.
 
2014-03-21 08:01:23 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: You're not allowed to damn a waterway,


Who are you to tell the mighty Xerxes what he may and may'nt do?

www.xerxes06.50webs.com
 
2014-03-21 08:07:08 PM  

Ambitwistor: Boloxor the Insipid: People saying you can't just damn up a waterway are not paying attention.  In fact, you can do so if you have a permit.  This guy got a permit.  He did everything he could possibly do to make a legitimate stock pond.

As James! said, he apparently didn't have the right permit:  the EPA claims that he needed to get one from the Army Corps of Engineers, and did not.  If so, I feel bad for the guy:  it's hard to navigate the bureaucracy.  But it doesn't give him a legal right.


You ignorant liberals realize the EPA has a string of cases they have lost overstepping their authority.

There was no dam. It was a stock pond once filled the creek continues to flow. Learn what a stock pond is.

This is not a navigable waterway. That word is important.

The USSC and DC circuit have plenty of prior precedence regarding stock ponds and the EPA.

STOP thinking the federal government is always right.
 
2014-03-21 08:15:05 PM  
SenorBenedict: IrishBlunder: proteus_b: If any of you wonder why it would be a good idea to disband the EPA, this is one fine example.

Er, no.  But a pond in the middle of Wyoming?  C'mon.  They mean to say that there isn't at least 1 or 2 *slightly* larger polluters and creators of environmental nastiness they couldn't go after, so it's some poor schlub with a pond?  Talk about going for the low-hanging fruit.

Hang around any facility that processes petrochemicals and/or polymers for a week or two.  Guaranteed you'll find something far more more worthy of attention than a freakin duck pond.  Bit harder of a target to hit with all those lawyers standing in front I realize, but that's supposed to be the damn job.

I forgot the EPA is only allowed to do one thing at a time, so going after this guy entirely prevents them from doing anything else ever.


Spare me the lame sarcasm.  Quantitative doesn't override qualitative.

Or in a rational world one arm of the org goes after locals, and the other goes after corps, though I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say corps are protected by local pols where as yahoo farmers are not.

Then the EPA can do a study on the environmental impact of the pond on the land and have the courts render a verdict. Rubber-stamp levying of fines for insufficient paperwork is bullshiat.
 
2014-03-21 08:15:20 PM  

MyRandomName: Ambitwistor: Boloxor the Insipid: People saying you can't just damn up a waterway are not paying attention.  In fact, you can do so if you have a permit.  This guy got a permit.  He did everything he could possibly do to make a legitimate stock pond.

As James! said, he apparently didn't have the right permit:  the EPA claims that he needed to get one from the Army Corps of Engineers, and did not.  If so, I feel bad for the guy:  it's hard to navigate the bureaucracy.  But it doesn't give him a legal right.

You ignorant liberals realize the EPA has a string of cases they have lost overstepping their authority.

There was no dam. It was a stock pond once filled the creek continues to flow. Learn what a stock pond is.

This is not a navigable waterway. That word is important.

The USSC and DC circuit have plenty of prior precedence regarding stock ponds and the EPA.

STOP thinking the federal government is always right.


But there is a dam. It's right in the farking article.

And I'm not shiatting you, 100 years ago somebody would have just shot his ass.

Progress indeed!
 
2014-03-21 08:17:19 PM  

Semantic Warrior: boyvoyeur: Landowner - I want to build a pond and dam a waterway and discharge water elsewhere on my property.

State Government - OK, you can build a pond.

Federal Government - Wait, your pond is fine. We got issues with the other stuff you did damning of a creek you do not own, and that your pond water and runoff is going into other waterways that you also do not own

Landowner - But, but... I got a thought my permit was carte blanche. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.

FTFY
He rants on about rights and other right-wing talking points, neglecting that those around him have the right to not be affected by his "dream" pond.


I swear. Do any of you know how stock ponds work? Once filled they act as a pass through. There is no damming. He got the permits necessary. This is not navigable waters, the EPA has claimed since ot was a tributary of a tributary of navigable waters they have authority. The supreme court disagrees. The EPA is currently trying to remove the word navigable through rule making. This will be yet another loss to the EPA in the D.C. circuit. They already got struck down for these finds without allowing judicial review just last year.

God Damon some of you people seem to love in authoritarian governments.

Do you think this is the forst farking stock pond in history? They are fairly common and this person followed the way to do it.

Some of you liberals won't be happy until we reach the same level of government as in hitchhiker guide to the galaxy.

Seriously sad some of you support this overreach.
 
2014-03-21 08:18:30 PM  

IrishBlunder: Then the EPA can do a study on the environmental impact of the pond on the land and have the courts render a verdict. Rubber-stamp levying of fines for insufficient paperwork is bullshiat.


Why should tax payers have to pay for the Environmental Impact Statement for this guys pond?  He wants to keep his pond, he can pay.
 
2014-03-21 08:20:24 PM  

shtychkn: IrishBlunder: Then the EPA can do a study on the environmental impact of the pond on the land and have the courts render a verdict. Rubber-stamp levying of fines for insufficient paperwork is bullshiat.

Why should tax payers have to pay for the Environmental Impact Statement for this guys pond?  He wants to keep his pond, he can pay.


This.

Honestly, given the choice, I'd go ahead and blow all dams. Rivers are a static thing like fire is cold. Then them run free!
 
2014-03-21 08:23:22 PM  

gopher321: I wonder who narc'ed on him?


paxchristiusa1.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-21 08:26:51 PM  
Fracking companies and such still dumping millions of gallons of waste-water into the environment.

This guy just pissed off the wrong person somehow, this almost has to be personal.
puntito131.puntopressllc.netdna-cdn.com
 
2014-03-21 08:29:19 PM  

MyRandomName: Semantic Warrior: boyvoyeur: Landowner - I want to build a pond and dam a waterway and discharge water elsewhere on my property.

State Government - OK, you can build a pond.

Federal Government - Wait, your pond is fine. We got issues with the other stuff you did damning of a creek you do not own, and that your pond water and runoff is going into other waterways that you also do not own

Landowner - But, but... I got a thought my permit was carte blanche. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.

FTFY
He rants on about rights and other right-wing talking points, neglecting that those around him have the right to not be affected by his "dream" pond.

I swear. Do any of you know how stock ponds work? Once filled they act as a pass through. There is no damming. He got the permits necessary. This is not navigable waters, the EPA has claimed since ot was a tributary of a tributary of navigable waters they have authority. The supreme court disagrees. The EPA is currently trying to remove the word navigable through rule making. This will be yet another loss to the EPA in the D.C. circuit. They already got struck down for these finds without allowing judicial review just last year.

God Damon some of you people seem to love in authoritarian governments.

Do you think this is the forst farking stock pond in history? They are fairly common and this person followed the way to do it.

Some of you liberals won't be happy until we reach the same level of government as in hitchhiker guide to the galaxy.

Seriously sad some of you support this overreach.


Did you read either of the articles linked?
 
2014-03-21 08:47:15 PM  

rynthetyn: Dude had a permit to build a stock pond. Damming a creek is a different matter altogether.


This. Wyoming didn't just decide to let somebody, anybody, damn up an actual creek. Everybody knows how this works.

Here's his "little" stock pond. This is just silly.

img.ksl.com

img.ksl.com

HE BUILT A DAMN DAM.
 
2014-03-21 08:47:29 PM  
I would bet you that someone (bureaucrat) sat and waited until he was done and then pounced on this guy because his brother-in-law wants it now that it is complete. After they bankrupt this guy and the BIL gets the land for nothing, the bureaucrat will make some sort of deal where the BIL just kicks a couple ounces of dirt in the water and the area in suddenly in compliance.
 
2014-03-21 08:52:14 PM  

FnkyTwn: rynthetyn: Dude had a permit to build a stock pond. Damming a creek is a different matter altogether.

This. Wyoming didn't just decide to let somebody, anybody, damn up an actual creek. Everybody knows how this works.

Here's his "little" stock pond. This is just silly.





HE BUILT A DAMN DAM.


But it has a 'Merkan flag, Libtard. Checkmate!
 
2014-03-21 08:59:37 PM  
It sounds, from the article, that he got the right permits and even wrote the State to ensure he had everything in order making him technically correct...

swtor.gamingfeeds.com
 
2014-03-21 09:04:46 PM  

FnkyTwn: rynthetyn: Dude had a permit to build a stock pond. Damming a creek is a different matter altogether.

This. Wyoming didn't just decide to let somebody, anybody, damn up an actual creek. Everybody knows how this works.

Here's his "little" stock pond. This is just silly.

[img.ksl.com image 640x360]

[img.ksl.com image 640x360]

HE BUILT A DAMN DAM.


All stock ponds are dams.  What a dick, fishing on it.  Its almost like the fish were stocked up in there.

Those do look like some mighty manufactured hills.  No money there.

I would put money on that he has a second drain for the pond to his brother in laws farm.
 
2014-03-21 09:10:19 PM  
I'm siding with the guy. The burden of proof is on the EPA.
 
2014-03-21 09:14:11 PM  

iheartscotch: Didn't some guy get his property taken by the EPA for clearing a deadfall that was blocking a ditch?


I remember that case.  Because of debris from a major storm, a waterway was blocked and resulted in a flood problem.  The county was so busy they told the property owner it would be at least two weeks before they could send a crew, but it was ok for him to clear it himself.  So he did.  Then the EPA heard about it and went after him.  Damn stupid.  I hope he didn't lose his property.

There are certain factions in the EPA who seem to get off on farking with people.
 
2014-03-21 09:14:17 PM  

tkrispin: Loren: tkrispin: While I work for a local government (environmental) agency back east, I do admit that the permitting process can be arduous. Between the county, state, and feds, you may be right with one but not the others, and the onus is on the property owner.

Which is something I would like to see changed. How the process *SHOULD* work:

You go down to the local office, you tell them what you want to do. Whatever it is, from opening a lemonade stand to building a nuclear plant, requires *ONE* permit--the onus is on them to pass it along to any other entities that need to be involved. They have a reasonable period of time to either issue it, deny it or request modifications or additional information--and a failure to act is an approval. They are permitted reasonable inspections of ongoing work and a reasonable notice period--but again, failure = approval.

cameroncrazy1984: It was probably sufficient for what he asked for, not necessarily what he used it for

This. I think he requested a permit for only part of the job, likely knowing he couldn't get the rest.

Yeah that would help things, I don't know if that would require more employees to implement though. And everyone's definition of "reasonable" tends to differ. The state will ask us about problems we delt with 2 years before. My county has over 800,000 people, so I don't know how your solution would scale. Worth a try though.

Oh and in this case (most cases actually), each day of noncompliance is a new offense and find apply.


I don't know what reasonable would be, either, but it would be defined in the law, not left up to them to decide.  I'm sure it would require more employees but since it would be putting the government against itself I think we would see a lot more efficiency as a result--inefficiency would have a cost in the budget rather than being offloaded onto the people seeking to do things.  That would mean savings to the departments as they streamline things and thus there would be an incentive to do so.

Consider the local situation when a licensed professional in many areas seeks to work at a location:  Business licenses, zoning? (I forget exactly what, but they have to approve the business location despite the fact that in the case I'm talking about it's an already-operating endeavor) and a sales tax permit (even though such professionals normally would end up filing a totally blank report every year.)  It's stupid enough that they need business licenses at all, the three separate departments to get it are nuts.
 
2014-03-21 09:18:34 PM  

SenorBenedict: IrishBlunder: proteus_b: If any of you wonder why it would be a good idea to disband the EPA, this is one fine example.

Er, no.  But a pond in the middle of Wyoming?  C'mon.  They mean to say that there isn't at least 1 or 2 *slightly* larger polluters and creators of environmental nastiness they couldn't go after, so it's some poor schlub with a pond?  Talk about going for the low-hanging fruit.

Hang around any facility that processes petrochemicals and/or polymers for a week or two.  Guaranteed you'll find something far more more worthy of attention than a freakin duck pond.  Bit harder of a target to hit with all those lawyers standing in front I realize, but that's supposed to be the damn job.

I forgot the EPA is only allowed to do one thing at a time, so going after this guy entirely prevents them from doing anything else ever.

Or in a rational world one arm of the org goes after locals, and the other goes after corps, though I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say corps are protected by local pols where as yahoo farmers are not.


Go read the farking thread right next to this one about Duke energy. Either the EPA has limited resources that they are wasting in bumf* nowhere on a duck pond, or the other arm needs to taken out back, shot and the duck pond division put in its place
 
2014-03-21 09:23:52 PM  

viscountalpha: I'm siding with the guy. The burden of proof is on the EPA.


All he has to do is when the EPA takes him to court is show the judge is permit that they issued him to dam the creek. Problem solved.

Seriously guy sounds like a crank.  Some friends of mine own some property with a seasonal creek boarding it. They view it with some suspicion since it's under the jurisdiction of the city, the country, the water district, the State Gov, and the Feds. Anyone who isn't a crank or a dumbshiat tweeker redneck knows to do anything to a creek you'll need a permit from each entity with jurisdiction over it.
 
2014-03-21 09:28:50 PM  
What a bunch of cocks.

It looks like they are just saying there is some dirt spillover into the creek via his building of the pond.

 http://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/rhc/epaadmin.nsf/filings/6c6ec0f783d2b5 3985 257c7c00214564/$file/cwa%2008%202014%200012%20ao.pdf


Although the owner says the CWA does not apply because of the type of pond.
 
2014-03-21 09:30:11 PM  

ShadowKamui: Go read the farking thread right next to this one about Duke energy. Either the EPA has limited resources that they are wasting in bumf* nowhere on a duck pond, or the other arm needs to taken out back, shot and the duck pond division put in its place


What resources do you think the EPA has spent on this guy's issue? This whole mountain that Fox News is trying to make of the story is in all likelihood just a molehill consisting of a couple of letters.

Also I shouldn't have to tell anyone that the fark headline is of course complete and utter horseshait. The guy hasn't been fined a cent. This is just the standard tactic of taking the absolute maximum penalties that the potential violation could possibly incur, pretending those penalties have already been levied, and whining about oppression.
 
2014-03-21 09:35:26 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: What a bunch of cocks.


I know, this guy, Fox News, Opposing View, and of course subby, are really a bunch of cocks for trying to turn this into a persecution story.

It looks like they are just saying there is some dirt spillover into the creek via his building of the pond.

 http://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/rhc/epaadmin.nsf/filings/6c6ec0f783d2b5 3985 257c7c00214564/$file/cwa%2008%202014%200012%20ao.pdf

Although the owner says the CWA does not apply because of the type of pond.


Thanks for posting that, it shows that the EPA is threatening this poor guy with the horrible punishment of having to submit plans and clean up any mess he created. The horror. The horror.
 
2014-03-21 09:53:57 PM  
Everyone that doesn't think the BATFE should burn the guys house down, shoot his wife, kid(s) and dog for running afoul of a regulation is a rethuglican turrist hack.
 
2014-03-21 09:59:38 PM  
Okay, this guy is a confirmed total dumbass with a persecution complex. From the doc linked above here's the relevant section on what he did wrong:

4. Six Mile Creek is a perennial tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which is a perennial tributary of the Green River. The Green River is, and was at all relevant times, a navigable, interstate water of the United States.
5. In or about the summer and early fall of2012, Respondent or persons acting on his behalf began construction activities, without a CWA section 404 permit, within and adjacent to Six Mile Creek that resulted in the discharge of dredged and fill material to the creek below the ordinary high water mark.
6. On October 11,2012, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted an inspection of the Site and confirmed that Respondent or persons acting on his behalf had discharged or allowed the discharge of approximately 12 cubic yards of dredged and fill material below the ordinary high water mark of Six Mile Creek during construction of a dam. The work resulted in filling an approximately 40-foot reach of the creek and inundation of an approximately reach.
7. On September 5, 2012, the Corps contacted Mr. Johnson by telephone to inquire about the dam construction activities at the Site and authorization for the work. The Corps also informed Respondent of the Corps' CWA regulatory authority and requested that Respondent send information about the dam construction project to the Corps. The Corps did not receive any such information from Respondent following that telephone conversation.
8. On October 26,2012, the Corps sent a letter to Respondent notifying him that a standard project-specific CWA permit would have been required prior to the dam construction activities, but that an application for such a permit was never received by the Corps and authorization was never granted. Therefore, the project was performed in violation of section 30 I (a) of the CW A, 33 U .S.C. § 1311 (a). The October 26, 2012, letter further ordered Respondent to cease and desist any further earth-moving activities at the Site.
9. On February 7, 2013, the Corps referred this case to the EPA for enforcement in accordance with the "Memorandum of Agreement Between the Department of the Army and the Papc 2 of IO Environmental Protection Agency Concerning Federal Enforcement of the Section 404 Program of the Clean Water Act," dated January 19, 1989,
10. On May 30,2013, the EPA performed an inspection of the Site and verified that an approximately 40-foot reach of Six Mile Creek had been filled during the construction of a dam, impacting approximately 785 feet of the Six Mile Creek channeL The dam was observed to be composed of sand, gravel, clay, and concrete blocks.

So the guy was clearly informed by phone that we would need a CWA permit and he was asked to provide information. In response to this he did not get a permit and did not give any information. He basically ignored the warning and request for information and just kept right on with building the pond and dam. Then almost two months later he got a letter again making clear that he needed a permit and that his continued activity was in violation. In response to all this he continues ignoring the issue and continues to build. So recently the agency probably sent him a strongly worded letter that listed the penalties for his violations, and he clutches his pearls and heads off to Fox News to flog his story of persecution when in reality he's a complete dumbass who brought this all on himself by intentionally ignoring the warning he received and waving a state permit that has nothing to do with allowing him to discharge large amounts of fill into the creek.
 
2014-03-21 10:08:47 PM  
lol, people think they own something. The government owns everything you dumb shiats
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-21 10:16:00 PM  
Thrag

If he build a "stock pond" he is allowed to dump dredged material in the stream, river, and ultimately ocean without an ACE permit, unless there is an actual rather than hypothetical impairment of navigable waters. That seems the be the contentious issue here. What did he build?

Often when Congress leaves an exception the agency will narrow it by regulation. They might define stock pond to include only pits smaller than three inches in diameter and two inches deep. There is apparently an ongoing legal dispute because the EPA and ACE haven't been able to get anything binding through the rulemaking process. (2013 commentary)
 
2014-03-21 10:16:44 PM  
The EPA said he damned a creek.  Reality is he built a stock pond near a creek.  The EPA is pissed over their attempted takeover of the Wind River land.  Wyoming told the EPA to go get bent, so they are taking a legal stock pond out on a Wyo land owner.
 
2014-03-21 10:25:12 PM  

Thrag: Okay, this guy is a confirmed total dumbass with a persecution complex. From the doc linked above here's the relevant section on what he did wrong:

4. Six Mile Creek is a perennial tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which is a perennial tributary of the Green River. The Green River is, and was at all relevant times, a navigable, interstate water of the United States.
5. In or about the summer and early fall of2012, Respondent or persons acting on his behalf began construction activities, without a CWA section 404 permit, within and adjacent to Six Mile Creek that resulted in the discharge of dredged and fill material to the creek below the ordinary high water mark.
6. On October 11,2012, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted an inspection of the Site and confirmed that Respondent or persons acting on his behalf had discharged or allowed the discharge of approximately 12 cubic yards of dredged and fill material below the ordinary high water mark of Six Mile Creek during construction of a dam. The work resulted in filling an approximately 40-foot reach of the creek and inundation of an approximately reach.
7. On September 5, 2012, the Corps contacted Mr. Johnson by telephone to inquire about the dam construction activities at the Site and authorization for the work. The Corps also informed Respondent of the Corps' CWA regulatory authority and requested that Respondent send information about the dam construction project to the Corps. The Corps did not receive any such information from Respondent following that telephone conversation.
8. On October 26,2012, the Corps sent a letter to Respondent notifying him that a standard project-specific CWA permit would have been required prior to the dam construction activities, but that an application for such a permit was never received by the Corps and authorization was never granted. Therefore, the project was performed in violation of section 30 I (a) of the CW A, 33 U .S.C. § 1311 (a). The October 26, ...


The Blacks Fork River is not a navigable waterway.  It won't support fish or travel as it dries up every year.  That river averages 6 inches in depth when it's not dry.  The Blacks Fork drains into the Flaming Gorge which disperses all sediment.

Again, the feds are pissed about what is happening with the EPA's attempted land grab in the Riverton area.
 
2014-03-21 10:29:03 PM  
Lot of swearing in this thread.
 
2014-03-21 10:29:28 PM  

Thrag: Okay, this guy is a confirmed total dumbass with a persecution complex. From the doc linked above here's the relevant section on what he did wrong:

4. Six Mile Creek is a perennial tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which is a perennial tributary of the Green River. The Green River is, and was at all relevant times, a navigable, interstate water of the United States.
5. In or about the summer and early fall of2012, Respondent or persons acting on his behalf began construction activities, without a CWA section 404 permit, within and adjacent to Six Mile Creek that resulted in the discharge of dredged and fill material to the creek below the ordinary high water mark.
6. On October 11,2012, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted an inspection of the Site and confirmed that Respondent or persons acting on his behalf had discharged or allowed the discharge of approximately 12 cubic yards of dredged and fill material below the ordinary high water mark of Six Mile Creek during construction of a dam. The work resulted in filling an approximately 40-foot reach of the creek and inundation of an approximately reach.
7. On September 5, 2012, the Corps contacted Mr. Johnson by telephone to inquire about the dam construction activities at the Site and authorization for the work. The Corps also informed Respondent of the Corps' CWA regulatory authority and requested that Respondent send information about the dam construction project to the Corps. The Corps did not receive any such information from Respondent following that telephone conversation.
8. On October 26,2012, the Corps sent a letter to Respondent notifying him that a standard project-specific CWA permit would have been required prior to the dam construction activities, but that an application for such a permit was never received by the Corps and authorization was never granted. Therefore, the project was performed in violation of section 30 I (a) of the CW A, 33 U .S.C. § 1311 (a). The October 26, ...


Ah. So what he means is he COULD have had a legal permit, but didn't; and is now claiming that because he COULD have gotten one, they are persecuting him and his god-given rights to dam his own property .

People are idiots.
 
2014-03-21 10:29:46 PM  

cyberspacedout: dkulprit: iheartscotch: Didn't some guy get his property taken by the EPA for clearing a deadfall that was blocking a ditch?

/ sounds like the guy did his due diligence; but, didn't pay off the EPA guy with beer and steak

Well, the article(s)haven't made it clear if he had the permits to dam a river or if the river he dammed has been undammed. Or if he had a permit to dammit all. Man bad pun.

A bad pun at FARK is like premature ejaculation: you know it's coming, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Besides, if you hadn't, I would have.



Prematurely ejaculated?
 
2014-03-21 10:38:36 PM  

ZAZ: Thrag

If he build a "stock pond" he is allowed to dump dredged material in the stream, river, and ultimately ocean without an ACE permit, unless there is an actual rather than hypothetical impairment of navigable waters. That seems the be the contentious issue here. What did he build?

Often when Congress leaves an exception the agency will narrow it by regulation. They might define stock pond to include only pits smaller than three inches in diameter and two inches deep. There is apparently an ongoing legal dispute because the EPA and ACE haven't been able to get anything binding through the rulemaking process. (2013 commentary)


It's entirely possible that what he did was covered under an exemption. If so it would make the guy even more of a total dumbass. It is possible if he has just give the requested information he'd be fine. But instead it appears he chose to ignore the warning and request for info and continued with dumping fill into the creek.

It's like starting a major renovation, and when the building inspector stops by to say "uh, we don't seem to have a permit on file for this, can we see your plans?" you just ignore them and carry on building. Worse yet, look at how the issue is being framed politically, from the fox news article: "Instead of treating Mr. Johnson as guilty until he proves his innocence by demonstrating his entitlement to the Clean Water Act section 404 (f)(1)(C) stock pond exemption, EPA should make its case that a dam was built and that the Section 404 exemption does not apply."  So this is essentially telling the building inspector "you have to prove to me what I'm doing needs a permit" when you won't even give them plans or any details on what you are building.

It seems the main issue isn't even the existence of the pond or the damn, it's that the guy was dumping literally tons of fill into the creek. From the letter above it mentions 12cy, that's about 30 tons of dirt. That is from an inspection during construction so it's not the total amount of fill they dumped into the creek.
 
2014-03-21 10:54:58 PM  
Thrag:
4. Six Mile Creek is a perennial tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which is a perennial tributary of the Green River. The Green River is, and was at all relevant times, a navigable, interstate water of the United States.

In other words, the non-navigable creek feeds, from time to time, into a non-navigable river, which feeds into an actual navigable river. It's like arguing that a dirt road that connects to a gravel road which connects to an Interstate highway is also an Interstate highway.

So he's two removes away from the actual jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA.

Like I posted above: the EPA is trying to expand the definition of "navigable waterway" to pretty much any source of water. So the water that flows across your yard into a ditch behind your house is now under their jurisdiction, according to the same theory.
 
2014-03-21 11:01:19 PM  

cirby: Thrag:
4. Six Mile Creek is a perennial tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which is a perennial tributary of the Green River. The Green River is, and was at all relevant times, a navigable, interstate water of the United States.

In other words, the non-navigable creek feeds, from time to time, into a non-navigable river, which feeds into an actual navigable river. It's like arguing that a dirt road that connects to a gravel road which connects to an Interstate highway is also an Interstate highway.

So he's two removes away from the actual jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA.

Like I posted above: the EPA is trying to expand the definition of "navigable waterway" to pretty much any source of water. So the water that flows across your yard into a ditch behind your house is now under their jurisdiction, according to the same theory.


That's an issue that can certainly be argued in the courts or clarified through additional legislation. It doesn't change what a complete dumbass the guy was to completely ignore the warnings and requests for information and just keep right on dumping fill into the creek.

In alternative universe Fark, where the headlines are sarcastically correct instead of total bullshiat, this headline would read:

"Man who repeatedly ignored warnings that he needs a permit before dumping tons of fill into a creek while building a dam and a stock pond whines like a biatch when he's told of the penalties for continuing to ignore the fact that he needed a permit"
 
2014-03-21 11:04:28 PM  
"Said permit is in good standing and is entitled to be exercised exactly as permitted," the letter reads.

"As permitted"... Is there a better article that states whether or not he actually built the pond--"as permitted"? I mean, if he didn't comply with the conditions of the permit, then he has no complaint. Having a permit doesn't mean jack shiat if you don't actually follow the rules.
 
2014-03-21 11:08:30 PM  
Man fined $75,000 per day for building something on his own property that he got a permit to build

You know what?  A) Opposing views, I'm not clicking.
B) Obviously trollish headline to get a click for opposing vitriol, nope.  Not biting.  I don't need to read any part of it to know that the man did something stupid, and then was stupid for thinking he had his ass covered, and then made a big stupid pig ass out of himself trying to act like he was the victim here.  So thanks for the find.  Now go post some jezesmell links so I can not click on them either but instead surgically dissect them with mathematical-like precision from just looking at the troll headline.

you are welcome
 
2014-03-21 11:10:42 PM  

ZAZ: dstrick44

Apparently he is claiming an exemption from permit under CWA section 404(f)(1)(C). (epa.gov)

"the discharge of dredge or fill material ... for the purpose of construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches, or the maintenance of drainage ditches ... is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation".

If the exemption does not apply, he needed an ACE permit to build the water body. EPA says he has to prove to their satisfaction that his water body is within the exemption. He says EPA has to prove he is not subject to the exemption.


Seems to me like a non-moron (or someone who wasn't planning on playing the "fight the government" game from the beginning) would have gotten the "exemption" stuff straightened out BEFORE he out in the pond, right?
 
2014-03-21 11:14:56 PM  

cirby: Thrag:
4. Six Mile Creek is a perennial tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which is a perennial tributary of the Green River. The Green River is, and was at all relevant times, a navigable, interstate water of the United States.

In other words, the non-navigable creek feeds, from time to time, into a non-navigable river, which feeds into an actual navigable river. It's like arguing that a dirt road that connects to a gravel road which connects to an Interstate highway is also an Interstate highway.

So he's two removes away from the actual jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA.

Like I posted above: the EPA is trying to expand the definition of "navigable waterway" to pretty much any source of water. So the water that flows across your yard into a ditch behind your house is now under their jurisdiction, according to the same theory.


Yup.
 
2014-03-21 11:37:28 PM  
If he loses, he can set a few forest fires for revenge.
 
2014-03-21 11:45:18 PM  

foxtail: I would bet you that someone (bureaucrat) sat and waited until he was done and then pounced on this guy because his brother-in-law wants it now that it is complete. After they bankrupt this guy and the BIL gets the land for nothing, the bureaucrat will make some sort of deal where the BIL just kicks a couple ounces of dirt in the water and the area in suddenly in compliance.


Quite possably.
 
2014-03-22 12:28:23 AM  

bangmaid: I'm a big fan of government oversight, AND the environment, but jesus, who cares about a stupid pond in Wyoming?

Maybe go after the industrial waste that's polluting the Gawanus Canal first.


Wyoming is deep red.  They must and will be punished.
 
2014-03-22 12:29:03 AM  

Oldiron_79: foxtail: I would bet you that someone (bureaucrat) sat and waited until he was done and then pounced on this guy because his brother-in-law wants it now that it is complete. After they bankrupt this guy and the BIL gets the land for nothing, the bureaucrat will make some sort of deal where the BIL just kicks a couple ounces of dirt in the water and the area in suddenly in compliance.

Quite possably.


According to the documents that were linked in the thread he was warned years ago during the construction. It was a real nice persecution fantasy you had there. Sorry to ruin it for you guys.
 
2014-03-22 01:05:16 AM  

Thrag: Nutsac_Jim: What a bunch of cocks.

I know, this guy, Fox News, Opposing View, and of course subby, are really a bunch of cocks for trying to turn this into a persecution story.

It looks like they are just saying there is some dirt spillover into the creek via his building of the pond.

 http://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/rhc/epaadmin.nsf/filings/6c6ec0f783d2b5 3985 257c7c00214564/$file/cwa%2008%202014%200012%20ao.pdf

Although the owner says the CWA does not apply because of the type of pond.

Thanks for posting that, it shows that the EPA is threatening this poor guy with the horrible punishment of having to submit plans and clean up any mess he created. The horror. The horror.


Yes, and apparently, he is saying it is a stock pond and thus, does not have to convert the wetland to a wetland.
 
2014-03-22 01:09:49 AM  

Thrag: Okay, this guy is a confirmed total dumbass with a persecution complex. From the doc linked above here's the relevant section on what he did wrong:

4. Six Mile Creek is a perennial tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which is a perennial tributary of the Green River. The Green River is, and was at all relevant times, a navigable, interstate water of the United States.
5. In or about the summer and early fall of2012, Respondent or persons acting on his behalf began construction activities, without a CWA section 404 permit, within and adjacent to Six Mile Creek that resulted in the discharge of dredged and fill material to the creek below the ordinary high water mark.
6. On October 11,2012, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted an inspection of the Site and confirmed that Respondent or persons acting on his behalf had discharged or allowed the discharge of approximately 12 cubic yards of dredged and fill material below the ordinary high water mark of Six Mile Creek during construction of a dam. The work resulted in filling an approximately 40-foot reach of the creek and inundation of an approximately reach.
7. On September 5, 2012, the Corps contacted Mr. Johnson by telephone to inquire about the dam construction activities at the Site and authorization for the work. The Corps also informed Respondent of the Corps' CWA regulatory authority and requested that Respondent send information about the dam construction project to the Corps. The Corps did not receive any such information from Respondent following that telephone conversation.
8. On October 26,2012, the Corps sent a letter to Respondent notifying him that a standard project-specific CWA permit would have been required prior to the dam construction activities, but that an application for such a permit was never received by the Corps and authorization was never granted. Therefore, the project was performed in violation of section 30 I (a) of the CW A, 33 U .S.C. § 1311 (a). The October 26, ...


Im not reading they warned him.  I'm reading they discovered it was done, and called the constructed dam a bunch of fill.  and that the dam itself is the discharge into  the creek.
 
2014-03-22 01:16:02 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Thrag: Okay, this guy is a confirmed total dumbass with a persecution complex. From the doc linked above here's the relevant section on what he did wrong:

4. Six Mile Creek is a perennial tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which is a perennial tributary of the Green River. The Green River is, and was at all relevant times, a navigable, interstate water of the United States.
5. In or about the summer and early fall of2012, Respondent or persons acting on his behalf began construction activities, without a CWA section 404 permit, within and adjacent to Six Mile Creek that resulted in the discharge of dredged and fill material to the creek below the ordinary high water mark.
6. On October 11,2012, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted an inspection of the Site and confirmed that Respondent or persons acting on his behalf had discharged or allowed the discharge of approximately 12 cubic yards of dredged and fill material below the ordinary high water mark of Six Mile Creek during construction of a dam. The work resulted in filling an approximately 40-foot reach of the creek and inundation of an approximately reach.
7. On September 5, 2012, the Corps contacted Mr. Johnson by telephone to inquire about the dam construction activities at the Site and authorization for the work. The Corps also informed Respondent of the Corps' CWA regulatory authority and requested that Respondent send information about the dam construction project to the Corps. The Corps did not receive any such information from Respondent following that telephone conversation.
8. On October 26,2012, the Corps sent a letter to Respondent notifying him that a standard project-specific CWA permit would have been required prior to the dam construction activities, but that an application for such a permit was never received by the Corps and authorization was never granted. Therefore, the project was performed in violation of section 30 I (a) of the CW A, 33 U .S.C. § 1311 (a). The Octob ...


No, he is saying he did get the permits, and has a letter from the state saying he has the permits.

The EPA is saying there is a pile of dirt that is a dam, calling it a discharge into a river (a dry one most of the time)

Notice the EPA calls it wetlands and he must take down these wet pond and convert it back to dry wetland state.

simply because they want to ignore that it is a stock pond.
 
2014-03-22 01:48:09 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: Thrag: Nutsac_Jim: What a bunch of cocks.

I know, this guy, Fox News, Opposing View, and of course subby, are really a bunch of cocks for trying to turn this into a persecution story.

It looks like they are just saying there is some dirt spillover into the creek via his building of the pond.

 http://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/rhc/epaadmin.nsf/filings/6c6ec0f783d2b5 3985 257c7c00214564/$file/cwa%2008%202014%200012%20ao.pdf

Although the owner says the CWA does not apply because of the type of pond.

Thanks for posting that, it shows that the EPA is threatening this poor guy with the horrible punishment of having to submit plans and clean up any mess he created. The horror. The horror.

Yes, and apparently, he is saying it is a stock pond and thus, does not have to convert the wetland to a wetland.


And instead of giving the CoE information to that effect he chose to ignore them. His own complete negligence and stupidity is to blame for the situation. If what he is saying it true he should have given the Corps of Engineers the information they requested and they might have found that what he did was totally fine. Instead he acted like a dumbass and got himself in hot water for refusing to comply with even a simple request for information about the construction. He was called on Sept. 5, 2012. The issue wasn't referred to the EPA until months after when the guy simply refused to provide any information.

It's like a guy who gets pulled over for a broken taillight. Unless they behave like a complete dumbass all they are going to get a warning or at worst a ticket that says they have to fix the tail light within 30 days or pay a fine. This is the guy who mouths off to the cop and rambles on like "How dare you pull me over! I have a driver's license!", rips up the ticket, and then screams oppression when the cop writes up another ticket. All he has to do was give details of his project to the CoE and if what people are saying about the stock pond exception is true he would have had no problem. Instead he created the problem for himself.
 
2014-03-22 01:55:54 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: simply because they want to ignore that it is a stock pond.


Stock ponds are small ponds built for watering livestock. They are not fairly large private lakes stocked with fish and equipped with docks. He might be within the letter of the Wyoming law, but he's outside the spirit of the federal one, and I think it's going to make him lose the case at the federal level. The point of the Clean Water Act exemption for stock ponds wasn't to let you build whatever kind of body of water you want as long as you occasionally brought by some livestock to drink from it.
 
2014-03-22 01:58:18 AM  

jst3p: Arcturus72: jst3p: This is why people who don't live in an HOA protected community deserve what they get!


/or something

That's what I thought this was about after just reading the headline, and was ready for all kinds of HOA hatred, but then I RTFA...

There is a better joke to be made, but it isn't coming to me.


www.immortalmusic.net
 
2014-03-22 02:14:20 AM  
"Welder", eh?
 
2014-03-22 02:39:03 AM  
(Haven't read all the previous posts...)

I really believe in the idea of the EPA, but instead of farking around in Wyoming, they need to get their God-Damn asses over to North Carolina and deal with the coal ash situation.

/Or something like that, been drinking.
 
2014-03-22 02:52:35 AM  

rynthetyn: Dude had a permit to build a stock pond. Damming a creek is a different matter altogether.


Damming a creek is a different matter.
 
2014-03-22 03:57:58 AM  

Mitrovarr: Nutsac_Jim: simply because they want to ignore that it is a stock pond.

Stock ponds are small ponds built for watering livestock. They are not fairly large private lakes stocked with fish and equipped with docks. He might be within the letter of the Wyoming law, but he's outside the spirit of the federal one, and I think it's going to make him lose the case at the federal level. The point of the Clean Water Act exemption for stock ponds wasn't to let you build whatever kind of body of water you want as long as you occasionally brought by some livestock to drink from it.


Mostly this.

I understand the idea that Big Government shouldn't be interfering in poor honest folks' right to build whatever they want on their own land as long as they abide by the laws of their own state because 10th Amendment; but there's this little clause a bit farther up in the same document that says Federal law trumps state law every single time; and in areas where the Feds want to run the show, they get to do so.

The net result of this guy's actions, if enough people start doing shiat like this, will be that the Feds will simply claim preemptive rights over ALL water, and NO state laws will be allowed to control, because of Federal Preemption rights allowed under the Supremacy Clause. (where the Feds have indicated they want to play with all the marbles, the state can't play with even one) Up till now, that hasn't been the case with water rights--would you like to see it happen? No? Then STFU and tell the Corps of Engineers what you're up to when you build your "stock pond".
 
2014-03-22 06:48:37 AM  

James!: You had a permit, but not the right permit.


Came here to say this.

From TFA: "the Compliance Order reads like a draconian edict of a heavy-handed bureaucracy"

You are dealing with the EPA.  You may recognize the tone from letters you have undoubtedly received from the IRS.

Bruce Willis approves of your actions sir.
 
2014-03-22 09:02:55 AM  
MyRandomName:

Do you think this is the foirst farking stock pond in history? They are fairly common and this person followed the way to do it.

So you reject reality and just blindly subscribe to the pond owner because you're anti-government?  The issue here is the state said the guy could have a pond, while the EPA is after him for how he made the pond.

Just because you own the title to and register a vehicle, doesn't mean you can operate it without a driver's license.
 
2014-03-22 09:09:27 AM  
A 404(f) exemption is for man-made UPLAND stockponds.  Impounding a stream fails the UPLAND criteria.

Generally, when the Corps gets involved with an activity that was not permitted by them, they work with the land owner to resolve the issue with a permit, unless they have a history of this and are flagrantly violating the law. Impoundments of streams may be authorized with proper designs and mitigation.  It s done all the time by farmers and even Ducks Unlimited.

When the Corps explained his misunderstanding on 404(f) and explained they would like to review the activity for a permit and that he would likely need to make changes to the impoundment to make it compliant with the law, he no doubt told them to get bent. This type of recalcitrance automatically requires the Corps to refer the case to the EPA for enforcement. Rightly so, you don't just go around messing up streams for everybody.  It causes all kinds of problems with water quality and in a region like Wyoming where the quality of what little water this sensitivity is heightened.

But the EPA...talk about an agency that just can't work with people.  The SCOTUS has already told EPA they can not punish people without due process.  That is what it sounds like is happening again.  The EPA is threatening to fine the guy without a court of law convicting him of a crime. The EPA only has the right to accuse them of a crime and must take them to court.  Now that being said, the EPA does have an administrative court and may have followed the law, but they are notorious for not doing so. Check out Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency.   I believe this is the same EPA office in Wyoming that bungled the Sackett case.  Seems like they did not learn their lesson.

/Much experience in Clean Water Act regulations, the Corps can be reasonable but the EPA wants what the EPA wants.
//Citizens deserve due process, but they also deserve clean water and this guy thinks his property rights trump the needs of a country
///The bureaucracy needs to be fixed
 
2014-03-22 09:16:57 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: gravy chugging cretin.: CourtroomWolf: Nutsac_Jim: mbillips: If you dam up a creek, you're taking water from people downstream, no matter how small the pond.

I hear it will all make its way down eventually.  You arent taking it.  You are just delaying that gallon of water a little bit.   Unless he dammed himself Lake Erie, they will get the water.   A horse is still going to drink a gallon of water that will not make it downstream..

It creates a larger surface area for evaporation.

Increased erosion downstream from his pretty pretty little dam.

How is there more erosion downstream?  The guy in front of you said there would be less water.

Make up your minds.


// I never knew ponds magically make more water.


Its called Lane's Equilibrium... a balance of water and sediment in the system. Water stilled in a pond drops sediment to the bottom of the pond.  Ponds take water from the top of the pond which is clear of sediment. The water coming out of the pond is called "hungry water" and it will erode the stream to get back the sediment it wants to be in equilibrium.  This manifests itself as downcutting of the stream and bank collapse in the downstream segment.  A pond and damn can be properly designed not to cause these issues.
 
2014-03-22 09:19:45 AM  

Thrag: Okay, this guy is a confirmed total dumbass with a persecution complex. From the doc linked above here's the relevant section on what he did wrong:

4. Six Mile Creek is a perennial tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which is a perennial tributary of the Green River. The Green River is, and was at all relevant times, a navigable, interstate water of the United States.
5. In or about the summer and early fall of2012, Respondent or persons acting on his behalf began construction activities, without a CWA section 404 permit, within and adjacent to Six Mile Creek that resulted in the discharge of dredged and fill material to the creek below the ordinary high water mark.
6. On October 11,2012, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted an inspection of the Site and confirmed that Respondent or persons acting on his behalf had discharged or allowed the discharge of approximately 12 cubic yards of dredged and fill material below the ordinary high water mark of Six Mile Creek during construction of a dam. The work resulted in filling an approximately 40-foot reach of the creek and inundation of an approximately reach.
7. On September 5, 2012, the Corps contacted Mr. Johnson by telephone to inquire about the dam construction activities at the Site and authorization for the work. The Corps also informed Respondent of the Corps' CWA regulatory authority and requested that Respondent send information about the dam construction project to the Corps. The Corps did not receive any such information from Respondent following that telephone conversation.
8. On October 26,2012, the Corps sent a letter to Respondent notifying him that a standard project-specific CWA permit would have been required prior to the dam construction activities, but that an application for such a permit was never received by the Corps and authorization was never granted. Therefore, the project was performed in violation of section 30 I (a) of the CW A, 33 U .S.C. § 1311 (a). The October 26, ...


Like I said in my previous post, the Corps tried to work with him and he told them to get bent.  In comes the EPA.
 
2014-03-22 09:28:21 AM  

Eponymous: mbillips: Somehow, I doubt this is just a pond that fills from rainfall on his land. If it's a waterway, you can't just dam it up and waste most of it through evaporation in order to give your horsies and duckies a drink, and afford your grandchildren an opportunity to drown. Wyoming averages only about 22 inches of rainfall a year; downstream water rights are a big farking deal. This might be just a bureaucratic SNAFU by the EPA, but it very well might not be, too.

CoE was intended to support NAVIGABLE water ways...like most government functions, the CoE and EPA aren't content with their current calling and are constantly seeking to do more and more.   The courts have repeatedly biatch slapped them down multiple times for getting involved in creeks and streams that aren't able to be utilized for military or commercial water transportation.


The authors of the CWA have repeatedly stated, in briefs to the SCOTUS, that their intent was never limit  regulation to "navigable-in-fact" waters. You need to go back and ready the Kenedy decision again. This is a plurality decision and it states that a "significant nexus" is all that is needed.  Not an actual floating boat.
 
2014-03-22 10:23:43 AM  
asurferosa:
But the EPA...talk about an agency that just can't work with people.  The SCOTUS has already told EPA they can not punish people without due process.  That is what it sounds like is happening again.  The EPA is threatening to fine the guy without a court of law convicting him of a crime. The EPA only has the right to accuse them of a crime and must take them to court.  Now that being said, the EPA does have an administrative court and may have followed the law, but they are notorious for not doing so. Check out Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency.   I believe this is the same EPA office in Wyoming that bungled the Sackett case.  Seems like they did not learn their lesson.

/Much experience in Clean Water Act regulations, the Corps can be reasonable but the EPA wants what the EPA wants.
//Citizens deserve due process, but they also deserve clean water and this guy thinks his property rights trump the needs of ...


Wouldn't the EPA fining him be like the city fining you for letting your grass too long, or for parking illegally for an extended period of time?  You can fight the fine in court, paying it is pleading no contest... but the way you're describing it,if I get pulled over for speeding, the cop can't write me a ticket until after I've been to court...

The Sackett v. US EPA was about how to appeal a compliance order; lower courts ruled that until the EPA was actually pursuing any criminal or civil complaint,  there was nothing to appeal against... The case basically clarified that the EPA needs to hear appeals to their orders of compliance, because even if they're not actively going after landowners for anything, the landowners shouldn't be forced to halt construction of their house because of a standoff with the EPA.  It didn't actually say that the EPA was wrong to issue the order of compliance. I cannot, however, find anything after the SCOTUS ruling to support or refute the EPA's original order of compliance, or whether or not the landowners, once given the right to appeal, won said appeal.
 
2014-03-22 10:51:02 AM  

Semantic Warrior: asurferosa:
But the EPA...talk about an agency that just can't work with people.  The SCOTUS has already told EPA they can not punish people without due process.  That is what it sounds like is happening again.  The EPA is threatening to fine the guy without a court of law convicting him of a crime. The EPA only has the right to accuse them of a crime and must take them to court.  Now that being said, the EPA does have an administrative court and may have followed the law, but they are notorious for not doing so. Check out Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency.   I believe this is the same EPA office in Wyoming that bungled the Sackett case.  Seems like they did not learn their lesson.

/Much experience in Clean Water Act regulations, the Corps can be reasonable but the EPA wants what the EPA wants.
//Citizens deserve due process, but they also deserve clean water and this guy thinks his property rights trump the needs of ...

Wouldn't the EPA fining him be like the city fining you for letting your grass too long, or for parking illegally for an extended period of time?  You can fight the fine in court, paying it is pleading no contest... but the way you're describing it,if I get pulled over for speeding, the cop can't write me a ticket until after I've been to court...

The Sackett v. US EPA was about how to appeal a compliance order; lower courts ruled that until the EPA was actually pursuing any criminal or civil complaint,  there was nothing to appeal against... The case basically clarified that the EPA needs to hear appeals to their orders of compliance, because even if they're not actively going after landowners for anything, the landowners shouldn't be forced to halt construction of their house because of a standoff with the EPA.  It didn't actually say that the EPA was wrong to issue the order of compliance. I cannot, however, find anything after the SCOTUS ruling to support or refute the EPA's original order of compliance, or whether or n ...


The Ticket, as with the Compliance Order, is equivalent to being "arrested"; you are still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Until you are found guilty in a court of law, whether you plead guilty/ no contest or it was by a judge/jury, you cannot not be forced to pay a fine or serve a sentence in prison.

In both the Sackett case and this case, the EPA issued a Compliance Order threatening fines.
The EPA issues these compliance order when the agency believes a violation of law has occurred but they do so only ''on the basis of any information available.''  The Sacketts had no legal recourse against a cease and desist order and fines since they were denied any sort of hearing. If the were found not guilty because the federal government was clearly wrong, then that could be a case for a federal taking.  There is precedence for this. They had not been taken to court and they had not been found guilty, but they were paying for EPA's actions.  You can't take peoples money or property without due process.    The SCOTUS decided that was a violation of due process and that a Compliance Order was covered under the Administrative Procedures Act and stated they EPA could not take without due process.

In the case of your driving violation, the ticket is an accusation of a crime and is technically a form of arrest.  You are freed on your on
recognizance and expected to show up in court ourplead prior because your not a threat to society.  But you do not pay a fine unless you plead or are found guilty.  You have the right to face your accuser and defend yourself.
 
2014-03-22 11:01:38 AM  
FTFA:  "Rather than a sober administration of the Clean Water Act, the Compliance Order reads like a draconian edict of a heavy-handed bureaucracy," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Nancy Stoner, the EPA's acting assistant administration for water.

Only a heavy handed bureaucracy would have an "acting assistant administration for water."
 
2014-03-22 03:52:03 PM  

Eponymous: umm...that's how you build stock ponds.


Nope.

Nutsac_Jim: All stock ponds are dams


And again, nope.
 
2014-03-22 05:23:36 PM  

TheBigJerk: Whatchoo Talkinbout: stevejovi: tricycleracer: The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Should have just hired some undocumented Canadian beavers to build it for him.

[www.benzworld.org image 198x134]

Yeah, I vote for that.

Had no idea beavers had such big lips.

Is this a Furry thing?  Go back to fchan!


Never heard of it.
 
2014-03-22 05:44:25 PM  

asurferosa: The Ticket, as with the Compliance Order, is equivalent to being "arrested"; you are still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Until you are found guilty in a court of law, whether you plead guilty/ no contest or it was by a judge/jury, you cannot not be forced to pay a fine or serve a sentence in prison.

In both the Sackett case and this case, the EPA issued a Compliance Order threatening fines.
The EPA issues these compliance order when the agency believes a violation of law has occurred but they do so only ''on the basis of any information available.''  The Sacketts had no legal recourse against a cease and desist order and fines since they were denied any sort of hearing. If the were found not guilty because the federal government was clearly wrong, then that could be a case for a federal taking.  There is precedence for this. They had not been taken to court and they had not been found guilty, but they were paying for EPA's actions.  You can't take peoples money or property without due process.    The SCOTUS decided that was a violation of due process and that a Compliance Order was covered under the Administrative Procedures Act and stated they EPA could not take without due process.

In the case of your driving violation, the ticket is an accusation of a crime and is technically a form of arrest.  You are freed on your onrecognizance and expected to show up in court ourplead prior because your not a threat to society.  But you do not pay a fine unless you plead or are found guilty.  You have the right to face your accuser and defend yourself.


Please clarify how the EPA was forcing anyone to pay fines? The whole traffic citation I used for comparison is to demonstrate that issuing a fine isn't forcing to pay it, and as far as I've read here and other linked sources, all the EPA has done is issue fines.  Sacketts vs US EPA does indeed set precedent that the landowners in this article can appeal; but their appeal isn't against the order, they're saying the EPA has no authority here, that they're special snowflakes who are and exception and the federal laws don't apply to them.
 
2014-03-22 10:04:53 PM  

Gyrfalcon: but there's this little clause a bit farther up in the same document that says Federal law trumps state law every single time; and in areas where the Feds want to run the show, they get to do so.


That little clause that let's the Feds override state law only applies when the Feds have been specifically granted the power in the Constitution.  Now where, exactly, does the Constitution state the feds get to dictate terms of a stock pond built off a tributary of a tributary?   If the Feds have not been granted the power, they are very clearly denied that power.   Despite the last 100+ years of the government ignoring that piece of the Constitution, it is still the law of the land.
 
Displayed 223 of 223 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report