Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

21990 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2014 at 5:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



223 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 23 of 223 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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