The EPA plans to expand its mandate far beyond regulation of "navigable waters" next month. If they get their way, those of us building ponds on what we thought was our property may get a very unpleasant surprise one day.

Who are we to change the ecosystem by building a dam? What gives us the right to feed fish, don't we know this practice may pollute the water? What do you mean by using chemicals to reduce weeds, or introducing non-native species like tilapia?

Pondmeisters, this is very serious. I intend to contact my Senator and Congressman about this matter. Hope you will research it yourselves and take action.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/iowacaucus...vigable-waters/

Not a whole lot new about their goals. Yes, I have contacted my Senator and Representative.

They are after the water, then they will be after the dirt.

At what point do u stand and bare arms for your constitutional rights?
They are trying to Nationalize your water, which may someday be more valuable than gold or oil. When is enough, enough? Isn't Nationalizing the way countries turned to be "like Cuba"? Or is it by Executive orders these days?
Tracy

I am very active in my local Township politics protecting the rights of landowners, animal owners, gun owners, individual freedom. No law should ever be passed that cannot explicitly demonstrate how it makes someone more free without taking away the freedoms of another that are guaranteed by the Constitution . One person's rights end where another's begins, the Golden Rule.

This being said, I make guns, my kids are in the oil fields, my government doesn't care much for my family because of what we do. Many on this forum will not care much for me because of the things my family members and I do. I, however, will defend the rights of those here with property when your pond does not connect to a waterway and I have no caveats. I would even defend a pond owners personal freedoms if your pond does connect to a waterway leaving your land so long as you do nothing to infringe on the rights of your downstream neighbors. It's hard to find people who will as strongly defend my rights, specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, as ferociously as I will defend theirs.

Make no bones about it, we are having a cultural war in this country. Many forums don't allow talk of politics, they don't want to alienate those infringers who may frequent their sites. They don't allow it, until it is their Ox being gored. Well Pond Meisters, your Ox is roped up, tied to the altar, and ready to be sacrificed to the God of community good at the expense of personal liberty.


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

This is a great poem, I would argue that the infringers among us do a great job speaking out for the first two groups in the poem. Those who believe in personal liberty however, do an absolutely TERRIBLE job speaking out for freedom.

Rant for the day over.

It is possible to fight these things without violence, but it does take effort. I think there are many on this forum that are like-minded with you, but there are realities. This issue needs to be fought with civil action. On that note, can anyone point to an organization that is gathering signatures to fight this legislation?

Farm Bureau.

I've said it for the past several years - the forum could serve as a voice to try and get the ball rolling on national issues. There are other publications whose membership universe would be similarly affected by certain issues and may be open to merging power and increasing the volume of the voice. A call to the editor of Acreage Life and similar groups would answer that question pretty quickly. Never know, maybe Tractor Supply stores nationwide would be willing to place some literature at their checkout stands. I bet that segment would eat this stuff up. I've offered to help get this rolling in the past, offer still stands.

Tim, I don't own a gun, but I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. If we the people don't hang together, then we will hang separately. I'm for doing it through civic action, such as pressing our Congressmen and Senators. If we push them hard enough, maybe something can be done, such as passage of Rand Paul's legislation to forbid this power grab.

TJ, I hope Pond Boss can link up with other fishing, farming, and cattle raising groups to oppose this regulation. It isn't even a law, because the law passed by Congress specifically limited the EPA's power to navigable waters. Private property rights would take a huge hit if they get away with this.

http://ditchtherule.fb.org/

Mark, I went to that site.

It says that 262 House members, including 30 Democrats, voted to block EPA water regulations.

I assume(yeah, I know) that it is now in the Senate.

This has been an ongoing battle for a few years at least. First we had the Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2012, following year was Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2013. I assume this year will be Act of 2015. I hope Congress actually passes something this time so the EPA stops pulling this stuff every year. Maybe with a Republican Congress something will happen but I am not holding my breath, I hear POTUS has his veto pen at the ready.

You think this epa bill keeps coming up, LMarseOFF! The batfe continues to threaten businesses, that depend on the 2nd Amendment, with their very business lives every year! We now have this bogus agency, illegal under Article I Section VIII, trying to outlaw some common 5.56 ammunition. They are doing this based on the premise that there are now pistols that can use this ammunition thus making all green tip ammo illegal. If this completely idiotic thinking can be used, you can create a pistol for any FMJ round and make it illegal across the market for any rifle.

-I have a pond, I'm willing to fight for private property owners.
-I have a gun business and am willing to fight for 2nd Amendment rights.
-I have no farm animals and have been fighting for farm use rights in our township for 6 months. We won! We can now have farm animals on 1 acre of agriculturally zoned land.
-I have no business sign but am fighting for businesses that do and depend on them.
-I have no commercial vehicle and am fighting for businesses that are being harassed by the MDOT.

My point is, I fight against every single trespass on private property ownership. If my neighbors can't expect me to fight for them when their ox is being gored then I can't expect them to fight for me when mine is. This mentality, I've found, is rare but not in my neighborhood.

We have a generation of people, no a basic human belief that we need to be regulated. We should NEVER regulate unless someone is trespassing against someone else and still never if the regulation is against our Constitution. This thinking is now dead in this country, at least in any meaningful numbers of people that will matter.

What to do? I'm become extremely vocal in my beliefs, not caring about the fragile sensibilities of the infringers. I fight local, I fight very hard. Get involved in your local government, you cannot believe how some of these savages crap all over your basic human freedoms. Tell them they are savages, insult them, shame them, fire them! We are doing just that in my Township. We are winning and will win more come the 2016 elections.

When this type of attitude starts local, it spreads global. We all need to know that there are more people like us out there who love freedom. Believe me, I was amazed, there are! Write your politicians, talk in the bars, talk in the restaurants, don't hire those that believe in infringing and don't patronize businesses that believe in it either.

First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win.

Right now our township is in phase three, they are fighting us. They did plenty of ignoring and laughing when we started though

When you were fighting the farm issue, did you invoke or implement the Michigan Right To Farm Act?

Townships are just silly with all these "zoned community rules".

No, we did invoke the lawyers of the Farm Bureau. The right to farm act does not cover a non commercial farm so us folk who just grow our own food are left out. No matter, we whipped em.

I'll have to see if any amendments were instituted, but only a few years ago all you had to prove is a sale of $1.00, and you can tell them to kiss your butt!

Sell yourself something for a dollar that came off your place, or to someone else and record it.

I'll look up changes, but the supreme court already ruled on this and smoked townships making their own rules.

We looked at trying to find the State law on our side. What we ultimately decided was that we, the people, didn't want to have to prove anything. There are many that don't even know what the MFTFA is, those people would be taken advantage of if pressed by the savage infringers on a Township board.

On another note, ready for this? Our board tried to make GAAMPS a mandatory regulation against even Commercial farmers! Yah, we clubbed these dumb @sses with their own appendages.

May 15th: House Passes Act to Stop WOTUS Rule
The House passed H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Act of 2015, by a vote of 261-155 yesterday. This bill would force the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers to stop moving forward with the proposed “Waters of the United States” rule.

Thanks for posting ewest, I was not sure where things were with this as I had not herd recently. Power hungry, money grabbing, Socialist. etc.

OK, it looks like we land owners who worked to get where we are, came out on top for now.

Thanks again

Tracy

yes thanks ewest for the great news

Thanks, ewest. Though this still has to pass the Senate and survive a possible presidential veto, I think.

In other words, it ain't over yet.

Sadly Tracy, there are very few of "us" who think like that anymore. The majority of Americans have become so passive towards new laws and regulations, that the mention of revolt, especially that involving firearms or violence, immediately earns you the title of radical, anti-government, etc.

America will inevitably face the same demise as every other country, because people will continue to let things slowly slip away. New laws and regulations will continue to be enacted, until one day we're all standing in line to receive our government-approved rations, healthcare, equal pay, etc.

The original idea of America was awesome. But unfortunately, we've reached the tipping point where the number of people who "want for it" outnumber the people who "work for it." That, in addition to the ever-growing number of groups and individuals on both sides of the political isle who think they have the right to tell another group or individual how to live their lives. All societies have a lifespan. Thanks to technology and the demand for instant gratification, ours is hurdling towards the sunset.

That's just my two pennies.

*Climbs down off high horse.*

And it all happened on OUR watch.

https://iowafarmbureau.wordpress.com/201...e/#DitchTheRule

Maybe I'm just too much of an optimist, and maybe I spent too many years negotiating with government groups.

Remember, this is not yet a done deal. I strongly believe, even with the deadlocks we regularly see in DC, this situation will resolve itself. The final decision will not totally appease anyone, but it will be workable for most.

I agree.

The point is not to flip out, but rather to make your voice heard. Farm Bureau is good place to start.

Its not law - its EPA redefining the definition of what water they control.The new definition make navigable water any place that is or has ever been wet. And if you are doing something that effects that "water"
they can fine you daily till you change it. That about sums up what 2600 pages say.
The POTUS says he will put it in effect and veto any attempt to stop it.
IT seems the congress no longer makes laws . Just the branches of government and President with executive orders.
The bill that just passed the house to stop this is not veto proof with the # votes they had.
It needs democrat votes to make it veto proof.

That is a very good point. Somewhat like Pond Boss, Farm Bureau is a voice, but they are a much stronger and larger voice than us, because of their size.

From my involvement as a long time member and officer of the West Virginia Aquaculture Association, the management and Farm Bureau membership is very well placed and informed regarding this issue. IMHO they cannot be extreme to either side. They represent those who farm our lands that can affect our waters, and they represent those who rely on farming the waters, who can also affect our waters.

Let's let realism rule. Read what has been proposed by the EPA, and inform yourself on what is being proposed by the US Senate and US House of Representatives. Yes, there are divides, but ...

Don't believe what "talk radio" and the many scare-websites are posting. The pothole full of water in your driveway is not going to be regulated -- even under the proposed regulations.

Please don't just sit back and read all the garbage. Get involved.

There is no perfect solution, but I believe the middle will win.

Water is a finite source and must be taken care of. I was fighting for taking care of our water when I was 12 (I'm 81 now) at the local conservation club I belonged to in a small town in Indiana. Oil and pollutants were coming from the Anchor Hocking Glass plant and running into the White River which flows on through to Indianapolis. The pollutants were so thick it looked like pure oil in this ditch. The adults of the conservation club were afraid to even talk about this problem because Anchor provided half of the jobs in our town. Behind our city dump was our water treatment plant and was located on white river. And just on the down side of it the condoms were so thick that the bottom of the river was solid white with condoms. To this day I walk and kayak the streams in my area and I know pollution and where it comes from. My farm and the farms in my area are no till farm and are farmed with chemicals from beginning to end. And with every farm ditched with underground plastic dranging piping the runoff is instant and into the streams. I have a small farm and I know how this works.

The EPA is the only protection I know of.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/nyregi...WT.nav=top-news

The new regulations will not change the situation that you describe. Enforcing existing regulations will. Everything looks like a nail when the only tool you have is a hammer. How will a new law (call it a rule if you like) change folks not acting on currently illegal activities? As someone who has already spent 25 years developing wildlife habitat on most of my land, I do not want more rules, but rather responsible enforcement of the existing rules. Maybe we need a million dollar study to investigate why common sense is an endangered species. Then we need a 3000-page "rule" to protect it.

I agree on enforcement of existing laws. However I also think some of the new regulation might reflect changes in society, and more importantly, address possible changes in climate. Water resources, in certain geographies at least, are declining. For whatever reason one chooses to embrace.

I hate to keep going back to this, but of course I will. Where in Artcile 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution does the federal government have enumerated powers over your pond, any of your property at all? Unless you live on the border of a neighboring state that is with navigable waters running into that state.

This is a State issue and the interstate commerce clause would only apply if you were affecting another States waters. The stretch is to great to use the interstate commerce clause for this, and every other left wing regulation we have, that attempts to make water run up hill.

If not in Article 1 Section 8 then our founders said that it was "left to the States and to the people". If we simply followed this premise, we would have law much more tailored to our individual needs and activities. If a State got out of hand, we'd have the option to move and live in a "more free" State.

This is this simple.

You forgot a "protection", your State. This is the business of your State, right or wrong. It's exactly how this country was set up. If we want an epa, ammend the Constitution. Oh wait, you can't, the votes aren't there. Because the votes are not there, we just circumvent the Constitution and do what we want. The founders would be so proud.

And if all 50 states got together and agreed on a common law or rule, without any federal intervention, then where would you go?

What if you have a groundwater pond, that influences and is influenced by, the aquifer? And that aquifer extends over the state line?

The fear is based on experience with the lack of common sense shown by some bureaucrats in the EPA in enforcing existing "rules". Some enforcers are more interested in the permit than in the effect of the action taken by the landowner. If the EPA had demonstrated better judgement in the past, then folks would not be so concerned. This lack of common sense is not restricted to federal agencies. I wanted to use an artesian well on my place that was dumping water on the ground as input for a geothermal system. The water would be returned to the same location being dumped into a wetland that we built years earlier. Our county has a ban on open systems so I went to the local commission and explained my case. The board agreed with me but their lawyer warned the next person could sue them if they let me do this. The county surveyor agreed even though he stated that he only gets 1 or 2 calls a year to inquire about these systems. In the end they said they would consider my request and get back to me. They never did this and I bought a conventional system from a vendor outside of the county many months later. The result was less business for the county, a less efficient heating system, and a disgruntled citizen. Now there is government at work! This is not a rare case.

The federal government desired end result stays the same, 'control the people'. That's what laws are for...this law vehicle can and is being used too an extreme with control in mind.

Perspective


The Over Regulation Nation......Regulating Ourselves Into Surdom.



The Towering Federal Register





How Many Federal Laws Are There?

Tbar...at our previous office when we moved in the inspector said we had to re-design our bathrooms to be ADA compliant at considerable expense. We told her "we are on the 2nd floor and this building does not have an elevator....so how is anyone in a wheel-chair ever going to get up here"?

She said "I hear ya but the law is the law". In other words...it makes no sense...but we are the gvt...and we've been put in place by control freaks....to force you to do stuff that makes no sense.

So we spent thousands re-designing the bathrooms to be wheel chair accessible on the 2nd floor of a building with no elevator.

We were in that office close to 10 years and no one in a wheel chair ever came to our upstairs office.

I think as the founding fathers wrote the constitution they couldn't fathom water pollution and equal rights for clean water in the 200 plus years in the future. Pristine water was all around them and plentiful and not a problem. Plentiful cheap food production will trump clean water most of the time. Power interest will win out most of the time. I was contacted a dozen years ago to take water samples in the streams around my area with a water kit I would be trained to use. They wanted to see how much pollution, what kind and where it was coming from. I said I would but I would also take sample from the tile running into the streams since I knew that was where most of the pollution was coming from. I was told I couldn't do that because it would make people mad, so I declined to be part of the fraud.

Actually the Founding Fathers were very aware that they could not predict the future. That is why they provided a way to change the Constitution. They did not provide for that change being done by executive order, or by the EPA.

+1

I also do not believe the Founding Fathers ever anticipated one branch of government openly and completely defying and ignoring the other 2 branches as is been done recently. Perhaps that was why the second amendment was ratified....to prevent and deter any unchecked power by only a few.

I'm afraid I can't quite agree that "pristine water was all around them". Pollution was everywhere there were people, even the indigenous. That is why we can discover so many camps along waterways...the pollution left behind. Granted, far fewer people were on the land, yet many rivers are less polluted now than they were in the 1500's. There were no landfills, no sewage treatment plants, no concern for what gets dumped in a stream after cutting timber, refining petroleum, firing bricks, etc. IMHO, the creation of the EPA, and setting the general standards as originally intended, definitely played a part in waters being cleaned, yet it was education, awareness and instilling a sense of responsibility for our surroundings by the general population that made the largest impact.

Things were not always rosy in the past:

"In 1771, Tobias Smollet wrote, "If I would drink water, I must quaff the mawkish contents of an open aqueduct, exposed to all manner of defilement, or swallow that which comes from the River Thames, impregnated with all the filth of London and Westminster. Human excrement is the least offensive part of the concrete, which is composed of all the drugs, minerals, and poisons used in mechanics and manufacture, enriched with the putrefying carcases of beasts and men, and mixed with the scourings of all the wash-tubs, kennels and common sewers within the bills of mortality.""

http://www.pbs.org/kqed/demonbarber/madding/waterandwaste.html

I don't know. Was it strictly voluntary on the part of the general population, or was some part of it due to the threat of "teeth", that federal regulations brought into the picture?

Would everyone, individual and corporate, voluntarily do what was right, or would there always exist those who chose to do what was in their own, best interest, and disregard the impact their actions might have on others?

FWIW I agree in part with both positions. There are lots of individuals that are very environmentally minded and do things like recycle instead of throwing everything into the garbage bound for the landfill. In our neighborhood, there is actually an additional charge from the waste management company for the extra recycling bin pickup but, most folks still recycle.

On the flip side, you have corporate America. They have no conscience. The bottom-line is god. If it is cheaper to dump their waste in a stream, they will if there is no penalty and enforcement. If it is cheaper to send jobs overseas they will. If it is more profitable to stop making fish pellets, they will. Just my 2 cents

I am certainly not against regulation, but the clean water act was limited to the navigable waters. Right or wrong, that was the law. The legislative branch is responsible for legislation, not the EPA or executive branch. That is what the US Constitution outlines. If someone pollutes these waters, then that is where the "teeth" should come in, not in constructing such a bureaucratic nightmare that conservationist landowners are priced out of improving the conservation value of their own property. Something is very broken.

I propose that the intent for using the term navigable waters, may have originally intended to portray moving waters. As in a conduit for undesirable substances and species to end up in locations far removed from point of entry.

I'm going to go all in and further submit that all ponds, private property or not, may: leak water, discharge water, connect to other, moving bodies of water. In addition, runoff from private property is just that....runoff. It doesn't stay in one place, and respect property lines. It migrates out, down, whatever. And most likely, encounters other, non-static bodies of water, both above and below ground, and escapes the confines of our boundary fences.

I'm even going to go out on a limb and claim that ALL of our water may be connected in one form or another, and what happens here, with my water on my property, may well affect the water miles away. And there's not an above ground stream on the place.

I'm not saying I agree with everything the EPA is claiming, I'm saying I perceive the original intent for the new rules as being just. I think the ruling needs a whole lot more clarification, and the present incarnation is likely unworkable. I just think the basic reasoning is sound.

Perhaps the intent of navigable waters was to limit the federal government's jurisdiction to their power over interstate commerce. No need to speculate though.

"Current Regulatory Definition of Waters of the U.S.
40 CFR 230.3(s) The term waters of the United States means (please note: this current definition will be replaced by the definition in the final rule effective 60 days after the final rule publication date): All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;"

http://www2.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule/documents-related-clean-water-rule

...and still do if the penalty is still cheaper than doing it the right way.

RAH, no hostility intended by this question, simply curious: Do you believe your rights as a private property owner gives you leeway, either by action or inaction, to affect the water sources of those living next to you? All sources, both above and below ground?

I would ask the same question of all who have been involved in these recent threads...where do our rights as property owners end, and those of our neighbors begin?

No I do not. If my actions adversely affect anyone else, then I expect to be challenged, perhaps in court. But that does not give the EPA the right to preemptively force me thorough a bureaucratic regulatory and permitting process prescribing how I modify my property (e.g. build a pond). The cost of building a mitigation wetland on my property by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) was an order of magnitude higher in cost than I built my own wetland. This was purely a function of bureaucracy that did not affect the resulting wetland. It is way out of hand. My brother is in construction, and he knows to bid government projects at several times private projects due to silly rules. For example, the INDOT wetland project used chain-link fencing in the dam to protect against muskrat damage, but all state projects must use a certain type of chain-link fencing to build actual fences, but that did not factor in, so they spent considerably more to purchase "special" chain-link fencing to bury in the dam. The list of similar situations goes on and on, at the expense of actually coring the berm properly. Fortunately I have adequate water flow to make up for the leakage. Words mean little when actions speak so much louder.

Thanks. I appreciate the insight, as it helps me see where others are coming from. Couple of things: Who gets to determine if your actions or inactions are adverse? What I consider adverse may be trifling to you?

Which is preferable: Challenge after the fact, or preemptive regulation? I might respectively argue that preemptive regulation is the basis for a good many of our current laws, rules, and regulations. Better to clarify what is acceptable now, rather than deal with the aftermath later?

I feel there are many who choose to interpret things in a black or white manner, without giving enough consideration to the colors in between. Going by the letter of the law is one thing, but I don't think that excludes us from the necessity of studying the intent for making the law in the first place. I try not to get hung up on semantics, or technicalities, or extreme literal interpretation. Instead, I choose to try reading between the lines, studying my perceived view of the intent, and applying intuitive reasoning.

Maybe we wouldn't have so much regulation if more would realize the intent behind such regulation, rather than taking great pains to pick them apart, looking for areas where they might cast doubt upon what should be obvious.

I was told that several years before we bought our farm, the former owner put turkeys on the land that defoliated the whole place and polluted the local stream. The EPA came in, shut them down, and fined them. That works for me. Punish those that are rude, not the rest of us. There is however a balance. IMO, the new rules step way over that line. Good intentions are not enough. Do-gooders kill people every day. Sorry to be so snarky. But I get fired up by bad regulation. And this is bad regulation.

You need not apologize on my behalf, for I am in no way offended by your comments. Personally, I'm glad we are finally discussing this issue.

My curiosity has the better of me however, and I feel the need to ask - please don't take this the wrong way - what kind of unique property scenario do you have where INDOT would need to become involved and build a mitigation wetland on your place?

I couldn't disagree more with the idea of a "preemptive" regulation. Why should someone possibly not liking what I do be cause for me to not do something legal? Let the person talk with, or sue me if they are bothered....

Law, more than anything, should be black and white!!! Ambiguity is exactly what has expanded so many powers in the current topic......the law was not grey or unclear...it was disobeyed!

Heck, I could probably live with an ambiguous law IF they would follow one simple requirement when writing a law...or regulation with the effect of law....Write it in a manner so that a man of common education can understand it!

I volunteered my land for the wetland mitigation (gave up development rights forever). Instead of accepting money, I asked them to build me a second wetland. I designed the one that was not part of the mitigation and it does not leak and is beautiful. I did not pay for the high cost of the mitigation wetland, but we all pay in our taxes. I am very happy with my decision, but even though I did not pay for the mitigation wetland, and am grateful to have it, the cost was crazy high. They would have spent the money no matter where it was located, so I have no guilt for accepting it. I would do it again in a heartbeat, but that does not mean that I do not find the excesses crazy. If you are ever going to be west of Indy, let me know if you want to visit (just not between Oct 1 and the first week of January). I am an obsessed deer hunter.

In my opinion, that took courage. I don't think I could do that, asking them to come onto my property. I have nothing to hide, but would be afraid that once I invited them, I would be powerless to get rid of them....sorta' like vampires in the movies.

Appreciate the gracious invite, and would be pleased to visit for a spell!

Rex, in my opinion preemptive regs exist to stop problems before they begin. And I understand your thinking on the black and white issue, but think about this:

A percentage of today's society spends a great deal of time trying to get around various laws. Looking for loopholes, technicalities, dubious interpretations....it's even a profession or two. Maybe, just maybe, all those endless pages of federal rules and regs exist partially to try and explain, define, and make clear what SHOULD be clear in the first place. I still contend that too many folks want to live by the letter of the law, rather than it's intent. They know what the law really means, but they search out the technicalities to try and get away with something.

In that respect I think we agree....we both wish the laws were simple, and black and white. Where we differ, is in the reasoning we give to explain why they are not that way at all. One side blames the govt. entirely, and the other lays partial blame on that faction of society that helped bring this upon ALL our heads.

Sorta' like that old question...which came first, the chicken or the egg? In this case, which happens first...society stands up and starts proving that they are willing to govern themselves accordingly, or the govt. backs off and gives them a chance to handle it themselves?

My goals are to have wildlife habitat, so I'll take their help if they offer it. Once I get a portion of our place as I want it, I add it to the Classified Forest and Wildlands Program. Not the best economic decision, but its what we want.

Isn't it interesting though that "farms" are supposed to be exempt from all EPA regulation? Yet another minor technicality in the law that is ignored. I lived near a moderately sized chicken growing operation in North Central Arkansas. The family farm was well run and managed, yet the EPA was there often testing for elevated nitrite and nitrate in the spring fed mountain stream that wound through both the chicken, and my properties. One visit, the nitrates were elevated and a $25,000 fine levied on the farm, but it was my downstream neighbor that had bought the liquefied poo and sprayed his hay fields, along with elevating the nitrates. Oddly, the farm did nothing wrong, and could not appeal (EPA regulation forbids that). The spraying of the poo made the area stink like crazy for a couple day, but it dissipated, his fields looked amazing and produced more than ever, plus the "polluted" stream began supporting more fish than I'd seen in my 6 years there.

Nice going RAH, making decisions for the long term. I admire that.

Time will tell.

I think that is the right top question in a nutshell. How much rights do we have to pollute our fellow human beings. In any area, not just water. As I hike everyday for exercise I carry a bag to pick up trash tossed into the road ditch by my field. The point as I see it is where does the individual rights protections give way for the common rights protection. The larger the population the more controls are needed is the way it seems to works.

A great question RAH

1. That is actually possible, it's called an Amendment to the Constitution. Specifically, a Constitutional Convention. It won't happen though, ever since the Senate was taken over by statism and the 17th Amendment, States rights are out the window. I don't know what you know, but, it used to be the Senator of your state was appointed by your State to FEND for your States rights. With the 17th Amendment, that went out the window. The Senate is now another federal official who gets elected by promising stuff from the federal largess.

2. I cannot dismiss this point regarding your "groundwater pond". This is exactly what I eluded to in my post. Here's the rub though, we no longer have a true group of State representatives in Congress, that went away with the 17th Amendment. The Senate was there to jealousy guard against the federal government infringing on States, it was a balance system, it's gone.

3. Ask yourself this though;
What is a bigger threat to you? A federal government regulating you to death about everything, using interstate commerce clause as cover, or a State government who will not regulate enough? I would argue that you will find State regulations will react to such pollution events just as strongly as federal government but in a more responsive and considerate manner. The law will also not be so cumbersome because it will be more "micro".

4. If we use this theory all the time, regarding border states, then what if you go to your border state and get sick at a restaurant? Should all restaurants now use federal health departments? Should we expect the same health code in every State? We do not now, it's working just fine. What about building codes? Firearms laws? The use of a States public parks and trees? Afterall, if you cut a tree down then the feds can say you are affecting climate change. There is NO end.

It's such a tough question that our Founding Fathers left most of these decisions to the States. They did this so some benevolent despot, the fed, didn't have all the cards. They wanted States to compete and those States that made the best decisions regarding a balance of personal freedom benefit to the group, would prosper. Only the enumerated powers to the Federal government are such that States cannot make decisions on.

Your comments are very thought provoking, unfortunately you seem to want to count on the dumbest among us (federal employees) to make your laws for you.

Tim, you failed to answer the question...where do your rights end, and mine begin?? What's your take on it? Does your right to utilize your property however you see fit, (your perception?) give you the right to influence how I am able to utilize my property?

Thought provoking is good. It's not just black and white in most instances. I have no problem with federal, or state officials making laws. Useless laws, yes that's a problem. Beneficial laws, no, I'm fine with it.

You are framing the question in a way that does not recognize that we all agree that we cannot do whatever we want on our property if it harms someone else. The issue is whether you preemptively punish everyone with red tape and financial burden, or do you punish those that actually cause the harm? The answer should be related to how severe the harm is likely to be and how likely the harm is to be reversible. If you poorly build a huge dam upstream of homes, then you might kill people. However, if you put a small pond in a ditch, any potential harm is likely to be minimal and reversible.

sprkplug, I think I did answer the question. I'll answer it another way for you though;

1. The Founders made this country so that the feds could only rule on particular government issues. It does not matter if the fed makes a "beneficial law" or not, they have to be allowed to make such a law by the Constitution.

2. The Founders knew that one's individual rights would be a moving target as time went on, technology, discovery, population, would all impact this. They wanted States to make these calls as people would be able to move to another State if laws were burdensome and didn't make sense to its people. They also allowed for the Constitution to be amended if our fed system needed tweaking.

3. It is not just black and white in some instances, when it's not, it's better to have the State make these calls. As the founders intended, you can move if you disagree with poor decisions at the State level and reward a better State with your residency and tax dollars.

4. About the only thing we can all agree on as far as "rights" is your right to punch me in the nose ends where my nose begins. Look at the discussions we've had recently. You would say that you have the right to "quiet" buy you cannot define "quiet" and many don't understand that if you regulate "quiet" then you will have unintended consequences. Banning loud music above 90 db is not good law. You cannot define music and if you could, there are many daily activities that you do that will be over 90 db.

5. Summing up, I believe that people should be as free as they absolutely can until they actually hurt somebody. Like Jefferson, I don't believe you should have laws "just in case" somebody does something or thinks something up that could hurt someone. Look across the world, at all the countries, is being more free better or is being more regulated better? Always error for freedom.

Bingo, punish the actual crime of hurting someone. Do not punish those that COULD hurt someone. EVERYBODY "could" hurt someone with their bicycle, do we outlaw the bicycle? The other issue is that the feds have NO right to outlaw bicycles, NONE!

Tony, we agree much more than not on a lot of things...

You said, "A percentage of today's society spends a great deal of time trying to get around various laws. Looking for loopholes, technicalities, dubious interpretations....". Why is that statement true? I believe it is because the laws defy common sense, and are not created to regulate any activity, business or action, but to completely obliterate them. Further, they are so overly intrusive, deceptively written, and overly broad, they are impossible to comply with....so the common person has no choice other than to get around a law.

Tony, to bring this to a more personally relatable level....you asked where do rights begin and end...why are your 5 Freedom Indiana ponds not currently producing pollution? Why would you "selling" a single fish, without doing a single thing differently in managing your ponds require you to now have a NDPES permit, a 404 permit, a business license, report your feed, mitigate any stream your ponds discharge may eventually reach, etc, etc, etc. Laws/regulations are now so onerous, they more often than not have the exact opposite effect than intended.

A genuinely objective person really has to look no further than the new mountain of EPA regulations on the coal industry to realize the EPA has no interest in Environmental Protection. "Legal" because they supposedly pertain to pollution, yet these were publically and openly created NOT to protect the general health and welfare of people, but to make it so expensive and impossible to comply with, the industry dies out. Remember those infamous words? We must neccisarily make energy costs skyrocket in order to make "green energy" more affordable".





EDIT: Deleted rant to try staying more on topic.

Reminds of the huge solar facility that focuses the sunlight reflected from a huge array of mirrors. Apparently birds that fly into the beam spontaneously combust. Then there are the windmills cutting the birds up. I suggested that they put these facilities next to one another and open a Shake'N-Bake plant, but they did not go for it.

To be honest, I'm not sure where to go from here. I don't want this conversation to turn ugly, or jump off into clean energy, climate change, religion, or any other non-pond related topic. I do feel that some of the answers to my question about property rights and ponds did an admirable job of making the point I was trying to get across - that being the apparent need to find the loopholes, in order to avoid doing what they do not want to do, whether it be the right thing to do or not.

Define noise? Define music? Really? This is exactly the behavior I have been talking about, and the reason there exists reams of paper to try and define what SHOULD be obvious to all of us. What's wrong with common sense? If it's late at night, do I need to make sure the punctuation is correct in the noise ordinance, or can I simply consider my neighbor's interest once in awhile instead of just my own? Doesn't sound that hard to me?

If my pond drains down and eventually enters John Monroe's pond, then do I still have the right to apply fluridone in my own BOW? John enjoys his aquatic plants...my goals are 180 degrees different. Chances are, it wouldn't cause a problem. But, I cannot rule it out entirely, so I do not apply the Sonar. I don't need a law, whether it be county, state, or federal, to side with me in this case. I will err on the side of being a good neighbor, and a good steward of the water that we all share. Unfortunately, it appears that there are some who do not feel the same way. And that is there right, and I will respect it even if I do not agree with it. I will however, point out that in my opinion, that mindset is a primary reason we have to have all of these laws in the first place. I posted last night about which came first...governmental regulation, or a society that proves such oversight is not needed??

That's what it's about to me...like it or not, we share this stuff.

If you cause the problem, then you must defend yourself against the damage you do. No one is arguing differently, are they? The argument is against proactive interference and punishment through permitting and a quagmire of regulation.

"You are framing the question in a way that does not recognize that we all agree that we cannot do whatever we want on our property if it harms someone else. "

RAH, I think most of us here feel that way, but I'm a long way from being convinced that we all do.

"Summing up, I believe that people should be as free as they absolutely can until they actually hurt somebody. Like Jefferson, I don't believe you should have laws "just in case" somebody does something or thinks something up that could hurt someone. Look across the world, at all the countries, is being more free better or is being more regulated better? Always error for freedom."

And I believe in doing my best to not let it get to the point where somebody gets hurt. Personal action, state law, federal regulation, whatever it takes.

I don't see where anyone is proposing you not be responsible for damage you create.
The point of this whole discussion is that the EPA has set itself up as the Judge , Jury and Executioner. Thats why we have 3 branches of government . Its checks and balances. This administration [ and some previous] has proven that they are not interested in checks and balances . Only what they want done . It is a elitist attitude.
The congress should be making the laws not the EPA . EPA and other departments should be enforcing the laws not interpreting them along the beliefs of a administration currently in power.

You're right Tony! I was deleting my rant in order to stay more on topic as you were commenting...lol

I have truly enjoyed the debate and many points of view this topic has caused...it's useful and provokes thought. It has also been considerate of all points of view even when attempting to alter said points of view with differing opinions and experiences.

As Tony and I also discussed in private, My personal opinions and concerns are formed from very different past experiences in dealing with the Federal regulations than his....all our experiences and thoughts will be as different as our goals for our individual bodies of water.

Earlier, a question was posed about how one person doing something on their land can affect adjoining land... I may not directly offer my answer to that, because each situation is different. We all draw lines in what we do and don't accept.

If I build a bonfire at night and my neighbor has asthma, am I violating his "rights" to clean air? Common respect and courtesy would dictate I would care about my neighbor, and at the very least let him know I plan to have a bonfire. His health issue in NO way constitutes his having a superior right over me enjoying my land, nor does it obligate me to refrain from my activities simply by virtue of his having a health issue. In my view, the asthma sufferer has an obligation to install whatever filter makes them comfortable. If somehow it could be proved my bonfire CAUSED the asthma, I could be sued, made to compensate him somehow....

Applying common sense directly to ponds, I KNOW if I build a pond below another pond, or in an area that will get flooded by a creek. I know I will eventually have whatever fish species are in those other areas. If my upstream neighbor has stocked Bullhead Catfish because he likes them, can I sue and say he "polluted" my pond when they are now in my pond? I could, and I would probably be laughed out of court. But if a construction company was already building a home and there are disturbed soils I know will enter my pond before I build my pond, I could sue for, and win, remediation costs to clear the silt. Both instances, I knowingly build a pond, aware of what will happen, yet only one activity is EPA regulated.....or was till the new EPA rules..

There is a saying, your freedom to throw a punch ends at my nose. I think some are just saying not to stop folks from throwing punches that do not hit anyone and are not designed to do so. You should not need a permit to work out on a heavy bag.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs. I perceive some as thinking it's okay to create that damage, so long as they are held accountable for it, and more importantly, get to decide if said damage has in fact actually occurred. I don't agree with that philosophy, believing it's best to try and avoid the damage in the first place, whenever possible.

Totally agree on congress making the laws, not the EPA, as well as the checks and balances intended to prevent what we see happening, from happening. But I'm not debating the legality of the ruling at this time...I'm debating the need for it, irregardless of where it came from?

FINnFur, you nailed the entire issue on the head! ELECTED officials have advocated their responsibility and authority to UNELECTED powers. Not only that, they (legislative and executive branches) have insulated those powers (and themselves) from being challenged or personally held accountable. The general population is darn sure held responsible and liable!

"If I build a bonfire at night and my neighbor has asthma, am I violating his "rights" to clean air? Common respect and courtesy would dictate I would care about my neighbor, and at the very least let him know I plan to have a bonfire. His health issue in NO way constitutes his having a superior right over me enjoying my land, nor does it obligate me to refrain from my activities simply by virtue of his having a health issue."

Right here! This is the fundamental point I have been poorly trying to make!

In Rex's example he isn't forced by law, or even obligated to put out his bonfire, but he considers his neighbor's condition beforehand. It's the mindset that says " Maybe I need to tell ***** what I'm planning, and feel him out a little?" Rex is still not required to postpone his fire, but he considered something other than just his own wants and desires, and made an effort to think about his neighbors.

In my opinion, this is the key. This is the reason for so many of our laws. Folks not stopping to think about others, but just doing what they want, under the umbrella of property rights. Is it legal to do so? Probably. Is it morally correct? Well, we all have to judge that for ourselves. And the difficulty in doing that, is where a lot of laws come into being.

Rex has every right to that bonfire, irregardless of his neighbor's condition....I want to be clear about that. But sometimes, I wonder if we would have all those laws if more people simply considered someone other than themselves.

Have not read anything anyone said that indicated "its Ok to create the damage".
There are multitudes of laws already on the books against pollution.
I have never seen anyone campaigning for dirty polluted water.
The need should be debated in congress - not EPA.
You can't have it both ways.
This is about the administration branch admitting they can't do it their way so they do it by making up rules and executive orders. They pledged to follow the laws and the constitution but since it can't get done that way they do it anyway they can even if its illegal.
We are a nation of laws. They need to do it the right way.

BTW did you know EPA contracted lots of tax payer money to generate favorable comments on this rule definition proposal. If its so popular why would they do that ?

I'm not aware of any popularity expressed for the new ruling. I've felt all along that it likely won't get any traction where private ponds are concerned, and will end up going nowhere.

We've all split some hairs and probably given some extreme, unrealistic scenarios to consider. Mostly because the EPA has show a penchant to be extreme in it's enforcement and jurisdiction. Based on past EPA actions, it is not out of the realm of possibility the EPA will do anything less aggressively. I'd argue it is extremely naïve to think the new-found power will not embolden the EPA even more.

No one has said that it is "okay to create damage", but who determines what is considered damage? Is it the so-called scientist or "expert" that cherry picks it's facts or statistics in a "study", in order to promote a personal goal? Is it group of scientists that admit the "facts" in their reports were falsified to achieve a group goal, but those reports supported other's with the same ideals and goals?

I argue it is not damage merely by not liking the looks of my "junk pile", cutting/burning trees, etc or feel that it devalues your property...you have to prove it does. "Feeling" offended means nothing, unless you can somehow prove it. One person's trash is another's treasure.

One person can hate seeing a tree cut down or a cattle feed lot. They can scream and holler all they want, claim it produces climate change, e-coli and any number of parasites and "pollutants", but, what about the fox or raccoon, or deer, or birds or every other form of animals that do the same? Perhaps those other animals actually caused whatever the offense is, and the "offended" person chose to ignore that minor detail in a study they have presented as "proof"? Hollering the longest and loudest, while promoting a lie, even garnering support and attention to help achieve goals in no way makes it truth, or right.

I'm in no way saying this scenario is true, but cherry-picked studies are common in today's society, especially in political matters of power and control, and the studies are frequently entirely false.

I'll go with the scientists every time rather than popular opinion.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/

As far as property values being affected by one's neighbors, that happens everyday. Case in point: when we purchased the place we live on now, there was an empty 2 acre plot right below us. After purchasing however, a business concern moved onto this property and began manufacturing wooden pallets. It was a mess, and looked the part. Giant, 30-40 foot bonfires to get rid of excess pallet wood, No sewer system, (denied by the county), Pneumatic nailers running all hours of the day and night. Huge floodlights illuminating his property and ours. No zoning then...it was a free for all.

Keep in mind, the property line was 350' from the proposed site of our home. When it came time to begin OUR construction however, guess what...the lending institution sent an independent appraisal firm out, and they said no way. We're not loaning you any money with that nightmare next door. Fortunately, all we lost was some good faith money. And eventually, we got our home. And we got the lights angled down away from our bedrooms. And I was reimbursed for my tree that died, due to the huge fires that were burning against the property line. But all of that took time and money, while we proved in court that pallet guy's idea of "damage", wasn't anywhere near what a normal, average member of the neighborhood would consider damage to be. If he had simply considered interests other than his own, we probably could've settled it much more amicably.

Do you really think that the condition of your neighbors property doesn't affect yours when the real estate appraiser comes to give their assessment? It absolutely does. It's not up to what I think, or what you think, it's about what the bank thinks. That's why they have estimates of value based on similar pieces of property, and pay you a visit before moving the value of your place either up or down.

Tony, I'm truly glad you prevailed. Personally though, absent other damage done, I'd defend the pallet company's right to do business as far as the aesthetics and light go. You were probably lucky they had killed your tree and done other actual, actionable damages, or you'd have likely lost.

Purely playing Devil's advocate here....Buying next to an empty lot in an area zoned for many things is the definition of Caveat Emptor. I don't see where your property was devalued. Yes, it had less value to you, but that was more sentimental than actual. Had you chose not to build and instead chose the monetary gain route, some company that used a lot of pallets may have paid a premium for the land just to be close to the pallet maker and get free use of the extra lighting.

YOU had an avenue to fight for your rights, and prevailed...It gets expensive to fight for and enforce your rights...I lost over a quarter million dollars when we were legally, illegally locked out of our property.

I am fairly sure you consider your ponds enhance your property's value. Using your comments on a right for no one to be able to devalue your property by their actions, what if the new EPA authority makes your ponds a huge liability to any potential buyer, effectively making your land worthless as long as it has water...?

But, bringing this back directly to the EPA, by EPA regulation, you can NOT dispute an EPA ruling in court, UNLESS they try collecting money...and even then, you can only fight the money sought, not the underlying rights violated.

That was the crux of the latest SCOTUS ruling against the EPA, that directly rebuked the regulation the recent executive order gave.... is that EPA circumvented due process by not allowing any challenge of their authority in court. Claiming the EPA's decision are the final, supreme authority, and therefore, not subject to judicial review. Essentially, though the court did rebuke the EPA for over reaching in it's jurisdiction, the only thing the Sackett's won, was the right to sue the EPA.

The Supreme Court, as ideologically split as it is, disagreed 9-0, against the EPA.

Here is the Syllabus and opinion of the Court's ruling....

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

I know you don't see where our property was devalued Rex, that viewpoint is at the core of much of our discussion. Or at least the crux of my argument. And you're not alone here, in thinking that way. No offense intended, it's just a difference in our ways of looking at the same issue. Unfortunately, the bank and the real estate office did not share your viewpoint....and theirs was the opinion that mattered.

Fortunately, I was familiar with nuisance laws and prevailed. Even on what was then, an unzoned parcel of land.

Curiously, I now find myself on the flip side of the same coin. I'm the one doing business (zoned to do so), in what is otherwise a residential neighborhood. And given my stance here, it should come as no surprise that I take great pains to avoid troubling my neighbors, recognizing that I am most likely to offend them with my activities, rather than the other way around. I maintain regular business hours, stopping work (noise) at 5 pm. I don't work on Sundays at all, and have limited my Sat hours to just noon. I keep my yard mowed, and my shop maintained. I landscape and plant. I don't allow customers to roar up my driveway and stir dust.

I don't have to do any of these things, legally. I choose to do so, out of courtesy and respect for others. I do my best to practice everything I have preached here in this thread.

How many here would do the same?


Oops...almost forgot. Rex, I'm not worried about the EPA. I've said that all along. In my opinion, nothing will come of this that affects my ponds in any way, shape nor form.

I'm far more concerned about the tendency of my fellow citizens to put themselves first, than I am about the EPA. Not directed at you, just a general observation.

It is unfortunate that many do not have the facilities nor resources to represent their own interests in these types of disputes. I feel blessed to have both. I have only needed the courts a couple times, when forced to by a contractor and the county tax assessor. I represented myself and prevailed, but it required a lot of time and effort to resolve things that should have been obvious. I have passed on taking others to court when I had good cases against them and had been harmed. Generally, I just want to be left alone. I try to "walk softly but carry a big stick". It is getting harder and harder to just be left alone though, so we will see about how long the stick will be left still...

RAH, I'm beginning to think the statement "should have been obvious" is worthy of it's own debate.

Good post.

Rainman, I would like to know if you applied for the required EPA permit for said bonfire????

Thankfully another non-enforced EPA regulation, at least in SW Ohio.

Actually the founding fathers knew exactly what to expect from government as they experienced it in the form of English (British Gov. by then was a democracy) rule. The founding fathers limited Gov. by putting the Bill of Rights in the Constitution and reserving all other rights to the States except the expressly enumerated limited rights of the Federal Gov. Neither the Federal Gov. or the States can infringe on the personal rights set out in the Bill of rights and a majority of the people can not change the Bill of rights. In short the Founding fathers did not trust gov. or a majority of the people with the personal rights of the individual.

The founding fathers and I have something in common. I don't trust the majority of the people with my personal rights, either. It's sad.

But you trust the federal government?
the world's biggest single entity polluter
and probably the worst civil rights
violator in the history of our country.

Using only the example you provide, Yes. In regards to which has caused me more grief personally, that distinction belongs to my fellow citizens, not my government.

As I write this, there are two chickens walking around inside my shop. I don't own chickens. My neighbor does however.


Afterthought... I will ask the chickens if I may see some identification. It's possible, albeit highly unlikely, that they are government chickens. Stand by.

What's your opinion on the right to a chicken dinner? In my book you do!!!!

The chickens have left the confines of the shop, and are engaged in scattering out the mulch I carefully placed around the trees in the front yard. Trying to keep the place looking good....residential neighborhood and all. In addition, they have apparently invited over a goat of dubious pedigree. The goat has found the blooms on my blackberries to be quite delicious, and is eying the strawberries with great relish.

If this didn't happen every other blasted day, maybe it wouldn't be so bad.

Government, 1
Ordinary neighbor citizen, 0

And the pattern repeats.

LOL!!

In Missouri, if they were cows, you could enclose them, notify the sheriff, charge the owner $25/day for care, recoup any damages, and after 30 days, eat them....or call your neighbor and say....c'mon dude....free range is YOUR side of the fence!...lol

Tony, those aren't chickens...they are Federal bipedal drones monitoring your activity on the Pond Boss forum. Doesn't mean you can't grease them, but I'd advise against eating them. As a mechanic you could use them for parts, instead, I guess?

I'll beg to differ (debasement of currency), but respect your opinion.

Sure it's funny now...but when the supply of blackberry cobbler and strawberry shortcake dries up, it's gonna' get ugly!

When was the last time the gubment interfered with your dessert?

OMG those aren't eggs, they're water sample collection devices. They ARE government chickens!

Last time I was in NYC and Bloomberg tried snatching my daily 8 pounds of sugar!!!

As I do yours.

Thanks to all for keeping discourse progress oriented and respectful. A good way to achieve this this progress is through the exchange of ideas, regardless to whatever degree they may differ from ours, and consider them thoroughly and objectively. I found my intellectual growth was only possible when I started treating my positions and opinions as malleable - and when I adopted a willingness to reevaluate them based on new evidence or new viewpoints introduced to me, my universe began expanding. While this leaves me as a man without a tribe somewhere in the middle, I discovered I don't need to identify with a group in order to possess an identity, either. That, coupled with the fact the Dali Lama said I'd achieve full consciousness on death bed, and I've really got two things going for me.

That's so deep I got the bends after reading it. Nice work, man.

sprkplug said: "I don't have to do any of these things, legally. I choose to do so, out of courtesy and respect for others. I do my best to practice everything I have preached here in this thread.

How many here would do the same?"


I think this is where I'm getting hung up, or missing the point.

I would say that 90% plus of the people here on the forum would do basically just like you. In other words, we are a the kind of neighbors one would like to have.

Good comedic gold about the chickens!

Tony, print out TJ's offering and shred it. Use it as fertilizer on the berry vines. It ought to work like and be valued like most free advice.

Sunil, I completely agree. By my reckoning however, that remaining <10% often appears to be the most vocal, as well as the most unwilling to entertain a viewpoint other than their own. Those make for some awkward neighbor moments, and unfortunately their actions often overshadow those in the remaining >90%.

When I first bought my property, I wanted to be a good neighbor. Within a short time a predator/prey relationship developed with neighbors cows, poaching, etc., etc., etc. The guy downstream from me on the creek tore down fences to graze my land. Since there is no law saying that I have to keep my gate closed, some of his cattle got away. Actually I removed my gate.

So, I turned into a jerk. Now some people don't like me but I sleep better at night.

And, it's not OK to let other peoples dogs run on my land during deer season. They found that out but I'm not going to say a lot about that.

One vote up...

Ha Ha touché Dave!

Common ground. It appears we all can get behind the idea of four legged livestock invading our property as being unacceptable, how much of a stretch will it be to extend our thinking to our fish?

In some circumstances it might not matter much, long term. But in others, it could wreck a carefully planned and orchestrated pond management scenario.

How much different is it really? Fins, or four legs? Is wrong still wrong?

My brother was already probably considered a jerk by many.

Dave -- one of the reasons I really enjoy your companionship is that you could be my brother's twin brother!

He has been running a small town for more than 25 years. When he turned 70, he decided not to run again, and retired. He wasn't even running during the last election two years ago. He got elected by write-ins with about 80% of the vote in his favor. I think he gets $90 a month for this prestigious job, plus unlimited use of a laptop computer.

Anyway, he is the also the dog catcher, grader driver, sewer engineer, etc., in this small town. When he "took care" of two dogs everyone in town was complaining about, he found himself on CNN. In the interview at his front door, you can easily see the words on his lips that were bleeped out!

I don't offer spiritual enlightenment cheaply, now I know to whom to send the invoice. Thank you for stepping up, Dave. The entire forum benefits from your generosity, especially me.

My contention is that you simply don't have a right to expect your neighbors to maintain your property value. You want the use of your land for what you want, what about your neighbors business and their rights? Aren't we forgetting somebody?

As somebody else said, you purchased in an unzoned community, you were not offended or impacted in any unexpected way. The only person you have to blame is the man in the mirror. I live in a zoned community and have found that there is a far greater loss of freedom because people who just love to infringe, like the well kept organization of such places and move here. Our community ended up becoming something that we never used to be, a socialist crap hole.

We are turning the tide. We've found that unzoned communities are also unorganized, random, freedom is everywhere. Infringers don't like this so they and their infringing don't move there. They stay out and there stupid laws never show up. The city loving people who moved to our Township came here to get away from the ruckus of the city, to smell the country air, to see the quaint countryside, and the first thing they try to do is turn us into the city!

Back on topic. Back in college a very smart man, my political philosophy prof who sat ion the board of the mackinaw center, always taught us that good law should always be sought and to do so you should ask;

Who will the law make more free?
Who will the law make less free?

You are no less free listening to loud music and you are making somebody less free by outlawing it, bad law. Only way to get bad law passed is in zoned communities. I'd consider a move to one if I were you.

IMO Ever been driving on a beautiful day with your truck window open and pulled up next to one of those cars with the incredible bass speakers thumping or a truck with a 6 inch megaphone exhaust blasting away so you had to roll your window up? Who is infringing on whose rights? It is all in the eyes of the the individual.

Appreciate that Tim, but no need to move. Zoning came to me, right where I'm at. A little at a time, things are improving.

Rainman one reason I say the waters were so pristine is from reading the Louis & Clark personal journals as they explored the Missouri and Columbia rivers to the Pacific and back, of the Louisiana Purchase as ordered by President Jefferson. They drank right from the rivers without disease, and only one man died from appendicitis. I never got the impression the Indians defecated in the streams, but that is hard information to find. Indians along the Columbia River caught lots of fish and as I remember they dried the meat and pounded it into a form of powder to be traded. What was a little disturbing was the expedition like to eat dogs and traded the Indians for them. The Journals are a free download if you have a Kindle at Amazon.com.

You wouldn't be on your property then. You would be "in" your property.

And that will be the beginning of the end. Once zoning starts, things will seem better. Then you'll need a permit for a chicken coup, then you'll have to have your grass a certain length, then you'll not be able to sell your used car if there's no license plate on it, then they'll want your no trespassing sign to comply with a sign ordinance, then they'll tell you that the adirondack chair outside must be proven to be rated as outdoor furniture, then they'll tell you how many acres of land you have to have in order to have a rabbit...

Once you cross that threshold to zoning, it is very hard to stop local ordinance rules. You can always find 51% of the people who agree that they don't want what the other 49% are doing. Enjoy.

I read Undaunted Courage by Ambrose. GREAT book! I am quite sure that the native people at least urinated in the water ways, threw their waste in the garden and run off went into some waterways, they still had beavers then so wouldn't they still be able to have Giardiasis? They may have been more immune to Giardiasis but that would be no different then traveling to places like Dominican Republic and the native people not getting sick from the water while we do.

I would argue that our water is far better for you now then it was when our ancestors arrived. On the other hand we are far more likely to get sick if it is not.

Even if America's waters were clean, European waters in city centers were not. I think the Founding Fathers were aware that water could get polluted.

But doesn't it keep going up the ladder to state, then federal. Till it gets to the point where the EPA is telling you it has to be done a certain way in Georgia even tho the reason for it's creation was in CA.

You mean to tell me that zoning will force my neighbor to build a coop for his chickens?? And I wouldn't be out in the shop right now, discovering chicken s**t on the floor after yesterday's avian adventures? Sign me up!

That situation can be easily remedied without zoning. BTW - Livestock confinement laws have been on the books almost everywhere for a very very long time.

Tony, like the cows say "Eat more chikin".

If you just do what I suggested in regards to those chickens, that would force him to build a coop too!!!!!!!!!! No rules, ordinances, etc. needed to take up a room with more paperwork.

Your just too nice Tony!!!!!

Right here. This is why I know the new EPA mandates will not affect me in any way. Let them make all the laws they care too. Enforcement is another matter entirely. This is why I refuse to get all bent out of shape over this. I think many place greater emphasis on the "audacity" of someone daring to make a new law, rather than actually considering whether or not that law will affect them.

I'm not wired that way. I don't get offended when the government tries to exert itself. I expect that. I hold no romantic expectations of a government by the people, for the people, so rather than lie awake worrying about the EPA's plan for my ponds, I just assume that everything they propose will pass, and begin concentrating on the implementation. Is it feasible? What's the time frame needed to make it feasible?
Where will the funding come from? Is this funding guaranteed? What will happen when the political climate changes in 2016?

Most often, and that includes this very instance, I find the logistics needed to implement such a fiasco render it virtually useless right off the bat. Problem solved, as far as I'm concerned.

The government wants to make a law outlawing the wearing of red shirts on Tuesday? Fine by me, no complaints here.

Let's see em' make it work.

I post once again:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Edmund Burke

What does your gut say? Does it really say let's play this exactly by the letter of the law, or does it say I recognize the similarity and it has merit? Do I rest my case on the use of a preposition, or do I read between the lines and pursue the intent?

This is exactly what I was referring to yesterday. Literal interpretation, rather than intuitive reasoning. In my opinion, this is one big reason we have so many laws, and paperwork needed to define and explain those laws. We all know what the intent is (was), but we choose to look for the loopholes in order to twist the thing into favoring "our" side, rather than simply recognizing and acknowledging the intent.

It should be simple. But it requires much time and expense to clarify, define, and explain. Just because we don't want to admit that we understand, but do not like, what the law means.

And the only thing necessary for the vanquishing of evil is for bad men to be de-funded.

21st century reckoning.

Have we sunk that low?

I believe we have.

My gut says, play by the letter of the law!!!! The law does NOT get to expand or grow on it's own! Anything less than black and white is ambiguous and as ambiguous, it is supposed to be unenforceable.

It has been asked who is responsible if a fish enters another person's pond, destroying a master stocking plan and goals....

If Person B builds a pond and carefully stocks his pond wanting only yellow perch, and then person A builds a pond and stocks it with bullhead, common carp, koi and goldfish. Both ponds are stocked with legal fish and all other laws that my apply are conformed with...

Person B gets his YP pond ruined because person A's pond overflows in a normal rain event and discharges as designed, has no barrier net and "polluted" person B's pond. Is Person A responsible for the damages to person B? NO!!! Person B knew, or should have known that by not controlling the ENTIRE watershed draining into the B pond and not taking action to prevent the entry of another unwanted species, person B took a risk, and lost..no actionable damage done!

Now, had person A intentionally drained his pond or altered it in any way to not conform to any pertinent law, person A IS responsible. Person B will still have to prove person A intentionally, or through some sort of neglect caused damage, in court, and a non=partial judge will decide who, if anyone is at fault.

Person B's failure to foresee and take precautions against a potential danger or damage in NO way requires person A to take extra precautions for person B...

If laws are to be applied fairly for all, and not misapplied as the EPA has done, there is no law at all! They should be entirely black and white....that is the only way a common person can know what they can and can not do. Subjective words and terms like, Reasonable precaution, or overly intrusive are for a court to decide, NOT any individual enforcing or wanting to apply a definition of their own choosing...again, as the EPA has done, and does.

The "morality" in this scenario is irrelevant....Morality can not, and should not be legislated, yet many of our laws now are very bad, because no morality was considered in the creation of the laws. That is the general population's fault for allowing our county's moral foundation to erode...

What about person C and D:)

C and D popped some popcorn to watch the fun...

I am guessing some folks have found us entertaining as well!

Rex, tell me this: How is it, that I am required by law to restrain my livestock to my own property, but should not be required to restrain my fish? Sure, a flood event can wash out a dam, the same as a tornado can remove the fence around my cow pasture, but I'm talking everyday, common pond scenarios....the normal discharge of water through the overflow.

Are we really, honestly not to be held accountable for what escapes our ponds and enters another waterway? Fish, invasive species, plants, chemicals....nothing accountable? The ENTIRE watershed? Really? We both know that could, in certain scenarios, involve hundreds of acres.

"My gut says, play by the letter of the law!!!! The law does NOT get to expand or grow on it's own! Anything less than black and white is ambiguous and as ambiguous, it is supposed to be unenforceable."

Then why on earth are we continuously bemoaning the excessive amounts of laws, rules, and regulations escaping Washington?? If we declare our wish for every last detail to be spelled out, without the need for us to do any intuitive reasoning on our own, just how is this to be accomplished without paperwork?

If we don't take responsibility for our own actions and recognize the need to examine the intent for a law, rather than studying how it might be interpreted to best suit our personal interests, then of course there will always be new laws handed down! Everytime someone questions what SHOULD be obvious, they will issue an amendment, or a ruling, or a new law, to try and cross the "T"s and dot the "I"s for those who delight in manipulating such things for their own gain.

I don't get it, how can you have one without the other?

Native fish are not domestic animals and are expected to spread by "natural" means. That is why only certain fish are permitted in a given location.

What about non-native fish? Plants, Chemicals?

Fish stocking restrictions (and invasive plant laws) are based on their inevitable movement. If you use a chemical in your pond, you are under the same regulations as a farmer that sprays a herbicide. If it damages my property, then you pay. Same goes if your livestock pollute water off your property. These laws have been in effect a very long time. Fish movement is similar to raising sweet corn. If the pollen from field corn fertilizes sweet corn, then the product quality goes down, but it is the responsibility of the sweet corn grower to isolate his crop. You cannot keep the farmer next door from raising field corn or win in court for normal pollen flow (although this has been tested in the courts). Same goes for those producing crop seeds.

Spark, first, Fish are not "legally" considered livestock unless your state defines them as such, so it is apples and oranges. Plus as a matter of reality, you can not restrain a fish fry that is 1/4" long and 1/16" or smaller in diameter AND leave excess water flow unrestricted. If a dam fails, that is probably a liability or neglect issue as a pond should have been designed in anticipation of the event...again, legally speaking.

As for chemicals, again, if you are downstream, you take on a presumption that chemicals will enter your property...it is YOUR responsibility if you feel it will harm your property...Again, just because you want something special or out the "ordinary", it is incumbent upon YOU to protect it...not your up stream neighbor....in fact, wanting something special, REQUIRES you to take special precautions to protect it. Building a pond without total control over the "Natural" flow of land lays all the risks and responsibilities for it at your feet.

As for chemicals, again, if the chemicals are legal, and legally applied to use in pond A, and they harm pond B. The owner of pond B accepted all risk of what may flow in....

You are wrong about chemical movement. The applicator takes the risk, not his neighbor. Check the laws. If you apply a chemical in a legal manner, then you are not criminally culpable, but you are financially compelled to cover off-target damage.

Perhaps esshup can comment since he has recently completed and passed his aquatic applicator licensing, but I believe another grossly illegal way the EPA has tried to garner control over the use of legal aquatic chemicals has been to make it legal for ANY downstream victim to claim damage, and the applicator can not enjoy the due process of having them be proved at fault...the mere accusation makes it a violation.

It is the EPA's intent to grab more control by totally sidestepping legal activity and removing courts or law from their goal's path.

RAH, I said, legal chemical and legally applied....Federally, only "licensed" applicators are held to this standard, property owners are exempt......also, if someone charges money to apply a chemical and is NOT licensed, there are even more violations involved...

My intent is to show when someone is and isn't liable. If the activity is in ANY way illegal, the offender will always be held liable for damage. Many states and local authorities have differing laws and I am only going by what I know or believe the federal EPA regulations are.

IF a licensed applicator over applied, or varied from his duties and responsibilities as a licensed applicator, the chemicals were not legally applied.....still, the offended party will have to prove that in court.....and that will cost money.

I am not aware of any forfeiting of due process of law if you choose to fight the allegation. Was that not just determined in an EPA case where the landowner prevailed?

I think it absolutely should be legal for someone downstream to claim damage. Water isn't static, it moves from place to place and may provide a conduit for whatever is in it to do the same.

However I also think the accused should be provided due process, and not merely accused without proof or merit.

If you apply a chemical according to label and according to all other laws, and a plaintiff can prove you damaged their crop, you will lose in court every time.

Rah, yes, that was the ruling of the court. It is also the core of the new EPA reg the POTUS put into effect by executive order. The EPA ignored the SCOTUS order by re-writing the regulation.....The congress, twice tried to pass laws forbidding the regulation, but they were vetoed.

Here is another perfect example of when the US Courts determine the EPA has no jurisdiction, the EPA writes new rules to side-step the courts....


As a result of a U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in National Cotton Council, et al. v. EPA, as of October 31, 2011, point source discharges of biological pesticides, and chemical pesticides that leave a residue, into waters of the U.S. are required to comply with NPDES requirements. The Court’s decision vacated the EPA's 2006 Final Rule on Aquatic Pesticides that NPDES permits would not be required for these activities. The EPA issued its Pesticide General Permit (PGP) to offer coverage for pesticide operators on October 31, 2011, and finalized a rule on June 21, 2013 to remove the exemption for pesticide discharges from the NPDES regulations.


In short, the VERY SAME DAY the court deems the EPA has no authority, they create an entirely new "permit" to keep authority, and take another year and a half before they "legally" gave themselves authority, by rule. What good does it do when a court says the agency can't do something, and the same agency continues, just doing it under another name, or permit?

Applying EPA mentality, DDT could just be called TTD, and not be banned...

Does this mean I can sue that Canadian Goose who s**t a carp egg in my pond and brought in cattails for trespassing and destruction of a fishery?



Thought provoking and entertaining!

See conclusions

http://elq.typepad.com/currents/2014/03/...troduction.html

RAH, I wasn't disagreeing with potential liabilities....the EPA attempts to take away an applicator's right to have them proved to be at fault....regardless of conclusions, here are the 2 most pertinent excerpt from your link that supports my claim....


First, risks are inherent and presumed.....

Pesticide use inherently involves risks to humans and the environment.[14] One of the risks is the possibility that spray applications will cause particles to drift onto neighboring properties causing damages

Second, damage must be proven in court (which the EPA is trying to stop)....

Generally, plaintiffs who can show that defendants breached a label instruction or regulatory provision can succeed in recovering damages.[24] However, for claims not involving labeling or regulatory provisions, plaintiffs need to establish trespass or another common law cause of action as a basis for the recovery of damages. These claims prove challenging for plaintiffs to establish. Due to the common usage of pesticides, strict liability is generally not available as a cause of action.[25] Nuisance may be defeated by an anti-nuisance defense.[26] FIFRA preempts negligence claims concerning labeling,[27] and remaining negligence claims tend to be difficult to prove.[28] This means that persons injured by spray drift damages often seek to sue in trespass. Yet, the intangible nature of spray drift makes it difficult for plaintiffs to meet the requirements for a trespass claim. States’ approaches to trespass for securing damages resulting from spray drift vary, and this can mean that plaintiffs must carefully plead interference with exclusive possession together with injury to a res, meaning substantial property damages or damage that is physical,[29] to establish their cause of action in trespass.

If Pond B has very rare, herbicidal sensitive plants, is the applicator obligated to inspect all waters below the application site? If so, how far? What if pond B's owner refuses to allow an inspection? Does that mean the applicator, or owner of pond A can still be held liable if damage occurs?

At what point does this liability begin and/or end? That is what courts are for...Again, this very type of scenario is exactly why every law or regulation should be as black and white as is possible.....otherwise, it is impossible to comply

You are splitting hairs. If my neighbor kills of my tomatoes when he sprays his corn, then I can likely recover damages. If I have an environmentally rare or protected habitat and you damage it, you bet you're in deep doo doo. I have never sued anyone, nor have I ever sought damages from anyone, but if ever needed, I am glad to have that right. If a confined hog facility moves into my watershed and my pond becomes laden with E. coli, I will protect my right to have clean water.

It's the split hairs that matter....If I fry your green tomatoes while popping my corn, and you wanna sue me, I'd say go ahead. It has to be "substantial" damage, and your rare plant requires you to take rare precaution...not me.

I'm joking, of course! I'd take you to dinner and buy you a tomato laden salad...lol

Seriously though, taking someone to court takes more than ability, it takes money...both to prosecute, and defend. "Small Claims" only covers money issues, like repair bills or back rent unpaid. Anything else like damage to property is a whole other ballgame.

About 15 years ago, I was sued. The predatory lawyer that filed it ran seminars on "how to make money through lawsuits". In my case, it involved an auto loan that insurance had paid off after an accident. I had all the documents, BUT, the lawyer claimed they were false. They weren't, but it caused the judge to set a trial date. Now, I had spent $1200 so far "defending" myself against a false lawsuit, and the predator "offered" to settle for $3000. The predator had also claimed that I owed over $45,000 in back interest/principle (the loan was 11 years earlier a full year beyond the statute of limitations to collect). My lawyer informed me that his legal fee's for an "average" trial would run in excess of $6000. I asked...won't that lawyer have to pay ME back for my legal fee's, even damages for a false suit...how can he sue beyond the statute of limitations? My lawyer said the possibility of getting a judgment for my costs was less likely than me jumping to the moon and as far as the statute of limitations and other particulars...that was what the trial would decide. I was pissed big time, but settled, solely based on the economics of it.

By the way, that lawyer now sits in prison....he filed an average of 30 lawsuits at $115ea for filing fees, a day....most cases he won by default because people never showed up to court. People like me, that did, he knew how to screw.

We're down to 500 plants now, but at the time, my wife saw the sprayer stop in the neighbor's field and then drive straight away, we had 3000 staked tomatoes in raised beds under plastic mulch with drip irrigation. It would not have been a small claim's court case had we lost our crop. I recently lost 20K on a metal roof that leaked immediately and had to be replaced. The lawyer that I contacted said we would easily win, but would be very unlikely to actually collect the court-ordered settlement. I would have to try and garner wages and seize assets. I posted a YouTube video showing the old roof which has been viewed over 2600 times in the last 7 months. They will lose more than me. I'd post a link, but think it would violate PondBoss policies.

Because a chemical is legal doesn't mean it has really been tested to be safe even when used according to the label. Two experiences I have had.

When coming home and getting out of my car I was overpowered by a strange smell and couldn't get my breath, thinking I was going to suffocate. I went into the house and could breath. I then went outside on my upper deck to see if what I had just experienced was still there and again couldn't breath. I stayed in the house for sometime until the air cleared. I told my farmer about it and he said he experienced the same thing and quite using the chemical. I had no idea it was spray from my farm.

I was a pattern maker as my occupation. About 20 of us in a large building were at work and we started to use a new epoxy for radius's on the patterns. Within an hour our faces and fingers started to go numb and we cleared the building. That's the reason I don't trust legal chemicals as some do. I could site other incidences of legal chemicals gone bad.

My guess is that someone did not follow the label in both cases. For example, the epoxy label almost certainly said to use it in a well ventilated area. I would get a new farmer if the first incident happened to me. Ag chemicals are some of the most tested and regulated chemicals that there are. I would not let anyone spray on my property a second time that cannot follow a label.

What is safe, or isn't, is really a matter of opinion. for any herbicide to be marketed in the USA, it must include an EPA approval/registration number. I'm thinking the EPA only begrudgingly gives those out after trying to find any way to deny approval...

To achieve EPA registration, aquatic herbicides must be effective in controlling target weeds, and also meet the rigid environmental and toxicology criteria required by the EPA. Aquatic herbicides require testing over and above that needed for non-aquatic herbicides, and take many years of research before a new aquatic herbicide can be approved by the EPA. Data from nearly 150 tests must be submitted and evaluated, including toxicity, environmental persistence and other factors.

Are you sure that the EPA requires efficacy testing for aquatic herbicides?

"Are there any data requirements for making plant health and yield increase claims on a pesticide label? LC09-0271; 6.26.09

Currently there are no data submission requirements specified for claims related to plant health or yield increases. EPA considers these types of claims to be efficacy claims and does not routinely require applicants to submit efficacy data for pesticides intended to control plant pathogens, non-public-health insect pests or weeds."

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/labels/labels_faq/lr_faq_12.html

RAH the label was well read on the epoxy. The building we built patterns in was the most aired out building I ever worked in and that includes the Pattern Makers area at Fisher Body for General Motors at Marion, Indiana. The building we worked in was a converted scatting rink with large windows all around that opened up. Then we had a huge overhead fan run by a 20 horse motor that made the room feel like we were in a wind tunnel. This was a union shop and we had OSHA safety regulation posted on the wall for all to read and we questioned everything related to our health. It makes you question what a safe product really means and just who does the testing if it is tested at all.

No, I mean to tell you that zoning will ultimately lead to your neighbor having to pull a zoning permit to construct a chicken coup for their chickens and so they will never build it.

We don't have much to argue about, we have no common premise. I am a strict constructionist and believe the rights of the individual are paramount to the rights of the State. Personal freedom is what this country was started/based on, not the "greater good". Without a common premise, discussion is futile. Zoning ultimately leads to severe harm to personal freedom and elevated laws encouraging "the greater good". This can sound great until it is your Ox being gored.

What the laws says is exactly what the law says. The "spirit of the law" will win a few court cases but laws should be written to mean exactly what they say. Playing loud music in ones car while on public road ways (one of the few things the federal government actually can limit on federal roads by the Constitution) is legal to be restricted by the law, including State law. Nobody will have their freedoms restricted by the law when driving on a public road and not being able to play loud music because that person is not ON their personal property, they are IN their property and ON public property.

Laws should be written to mean what they say and have NO room for "interpretation". Per Jefferson, "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." The law means what it says!

The EPA is Un Constitutional, the regulations they intend for our ponds are Un Constitutional. You sprkplg would have men be ruled by regulations which cannot and are not allowed to exist because you don't think these laws will affect you? Because you think it is needed and perhaps a vacuum exists to be filled? Let the States handle this, as States are supposed to, and let the federal government worry about ISIL and postal roads.

Tim, I respect your opinion the same way I respect every other point of view expressed in this thread. I may not agree with it, I don't have to like it, but I should respect it. I will fall back on what I said at the beginning. Time will tell.

Wow, great thoughts. Thanks for the posts. Glad to see others feel the way us Texans do.

I'll chime in with much caution. The constitution came about due to circumstances more profound than todays' social whelms. Brittan can't provide services or control the abuse of their children, just the tip of the iceberg. America has been great due to individual freedom and a populace that can generally be responsible to freedoms. Brittan is already lost and I don't want to follow their lead.

The EPA has a hand in planting non-native wolves in the Rockies, destroying 75yrs of conservation success. The EPA has a hand in the politically created drought in California. Who wants to protect water turkeys as an "endangered species?"

State governments have their problems just as the Feds. Yet at the state and local level there's a chance to correct problematic policies. Big problems can be resolved without washing away individual responsibility and hoping bureaucratic entities will make people behave.

Man's rights and freedom were created and advocated by God. The Bible restricts human governance to the self defense of a nation and to issues of justice. America wholesale adapted this during its' founding. This unleashed the greatest innovative betterment of mankind in the history of the world. No good can come of letting the EPA have more control. I, for one, think lead is OK, and self determination should be preserved for posterity.

If there was a "thank you" button, I'd hit it for you. Unfortunately there's only about 5% of the population left in this country that "gets it" and understands what in the heck you're talking about, I am on of those 5%. Thank you for being a Patriot!

The EPA can get pretty offensive. Here's a story about the EPA shipping filthy water to the Navajos for their stock.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015..._oil_drums.html

I heard about that as well. It's exactly what we deserve though when we let the dumbest among us make the rules for things not listed in Article 1 Section 8 The enumerated Powers. The States make mistakes but are much more accountable for them. When the locals get riled up, they do tend to vote local.

The EPA released a statement to KOB Thursday, reading in part: "These tanks were sourced from the water division of Triple S Trucking Company, an Aztec, N.M.-based tanker truck company. According to the contractor, the tanks were steam cleaned and inspected prior to use at Shiprock. Water distributed by Triple S tanks, under contract to EPA, was provided by the Bloomfield Utility Department, the municipal water utility company for the City of Bloomfield, N.M."

A local trucking firm, it sounds like. Filled with water provided by a local municipality. I don't think that excuses the EPA from doing a proper job of verifying what tanks were used, or where they had been used previously, but it's not exactly like a fleet of EPA owned and maintained tanker trucks rolled into town carrying contaminated water from EPA provided taps, like some news sources seem to indicate was the case.

Anyone here ever hire a pond built, only to discover the contractor you hired to do the job was sorely lacking? Did you call the project off and penalize yourself for not checking out the contractor more carefully, or did you fire that guy, learn what you needed to do differently, and move forward with another contractor?

I hope those folks get some much needed relief, whatever the source.

I like to fire the guy. How do we fire the epa? Can't do it, too many people on their teat.

So when is the EPA going to take ownership of millions of ponds? Sounds like quite an undertaking.

The EPA only picks on small people. I know a defense contractor that polluted hundreds of wells and some top waters. The EPA went after them, but got their butt kicked.

And they want to tell us how to manage our ponds!

EPA Causes Massive Toxic Spill In Colorado

Fortunately, want and get are worlds apart.

That wasn't the EPA itself but a subcontractor right?

Ha Ha....yeah Cecil it was the contractor that the EPA chose to do the work and was under EPA control. It would be like if you get deathly ill on a flight and the airline claimed "hey it wasn't us it was the contractor we hired" implying "it's not our fault". Even CNN calls it the "EPA Spill". I guess when the EPA does something good we should say "well it wasn't the EPA itself, it was the subcontractor"?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/09/us/colorado-epa-mine-river-spill/

I respectfully disagree Zep.

When the U.S. government hires subcontractors and the railroad or a truck line to transport nuclear waste, and there is a derailment or truck accident do we automatically jump on the government?

In this case the contractor accidentally ruptured a containment wall. Didn't matter if the EPA was in charge. Sheet happens.

Seems to me some folks just want to jump on the EPA or it makes a more attention grabbing headline.

No doubt that is toxic material if they say it is, but it sure looks like iron ferrate precipitate to me that will settle out and eventually be consumed by bacteria.

I don't know but I would bet money under the secrecy of this administration we are not going to find out the real truth any time soon.
The report I heard said the contractor was doing exactly as directed and the EPA doesn't seem to be in denial of responsibility .

Let's say I decide to hire someone to mow my lawn. I schedule a meeting with a maintenance concern, and together we walk my property. I lay out how I want the lawn mowed, what height I want it cut, what days to cut it, and what areas to mow. They accept my terms, and we agree on a price. They are of course, insured and bonded.

During the course of their first visit one of their mowers, operated by one of their own employees, picks up a rock and hurls it through my neighbor's front picture window. Should the story in the newspaper read "Sprkplug breaks glass"??

Should I have been out there, monitoring their progress? Or do I trust in the fact that they are professionals, but acknowledge that accidents, do in fact happen? Does an accident always have to imply negligence on someone's part? Am I to blame for breaking that window? They were after all, mowing in the manner I outlined to them?

In my opinion I didn't break that window. Yes, they were working for me, and yes I told them where to mow. But I relied on them to take my directions and implement them in a safe manner. Do I need to follow their mowers around, calling out obstructions and hazards, or can I rely on my contractor to carry out the job professionally?

Ah sparky, if only that's what had happened. Instead, I hired a company to provide me water for my cattle. The company I hired doesn't have all their own infrastructure and they sub contracted a trucking company to bring me their water. When the water was delivered, it was contaminated. The company that I hired DOES get to wear this. The company I hired DOES have to face the music, be liable for any damage, and apologize to me. I don't give two craps about the company I hired's personal issues with their subcontractor. Those two can sue each other all day for all I care. There is only ONE entity liable to me and one that owes me my money back.

sparky, you are couching this in straw man arguments.

idiots, just plain idiots. I see it more than I want to. My explanation of such things would be where a company with vast experience in doing X job is hired based on their experience. But then some young guy with this degree is the boss over the job and over rides the experience that was hired. Screw up is what happens most every time. Remember the Gulf of Mexico blow out that was in the news a few yr's back. I would bet a dollar to a donut, the same thing happened with the EPA screw up.

Tracy

I actually agree that in this case, the EPA must bear the ultimate responsibility for the water hauled to those folks. What I'm disagreeing with, is the manner in which this is portrayed by the news, and those who seemingly have an axe to grind with the EPA. Difficuilt to be objective that way.

The headline of the story linked to in this thread, make it sound as if the EPA rolled into town in a fleet of government tanker trucks, filled with contaminated water.

"EPA angers Navajos by sending water for their livestock in filthy tanks"

No, don't believe they did. The contractor hired by the EPA screwed up. If that headline would read "Contractor hired by EPA delivers tainted water", I wouldn't be posting right now. Yes, some will argue that it's splitting hairs. But to me, these small differences are important, and demonstrate what we've become as a society. It's easier, and preferable, to blame the government rather than a fellow, private citizen or business.

Who sourced those tanks?? Was it the EPA, or was it left up to that private firm? Who delivered that tainted water? Pretty sure that wasn't the EPA themselves.

You are not splitting hairs, you are making excuses for left wing ideas. Hire a contractor to build your home and your kitchen counter tops come out a wreck and there will be one person on the hook, the sub who put the granite in. The newspaper headlines should read "XYZ contractor has continued history of poor counter top installation". It's up to XYZ contractor to get their crap in order. When I manufacture firearms I have to wear every single step of the process. If a part that I have sub contracted out fails, people will be posting on the internet NOT that a sub contractor failed but that I failed. This is how personal responsibility works.

The XYZ contractor can go and post about the poor work of the sub but that's their thing. We are talking about the end user here, the farmer/indians. They were the customer and they get to complain about the contractor, not the sub.

The XYZ contractor can go and post about the poor work of the sub but that's their thing. We are talking about the end user here, the farmer/indians. They were the customer and they get to complain about the contractor, not the sub.

They may "get" to, but that's not actually accurate is it?

When you manufacture a firearm for a customer, do you allow that customer to stand over your shoulder at the lathe or mill, admonishing you to ream here, counterbore there, chamfer this? Not simply adding design input, but telling you how to do the job? Or do you remind them that they are the customer, (which is the EPA in this case) who has contracted you, the professional, to do a job? "Please allow me to do my job, I don't need micromanaging??"

That's how I see it...the Navajo's weren't the customer, the EPA was. The way I read that article, any contract made was between the EPA (customer), and the trucking firm (contractor. I fully agree that the EPA must stand for PART of the blame...but not all. And the media should not twist and manipulate facts simply for the sake of sensationalism, but rather report the issue without regard to political agendas.

That's my beef with this whole thing. It's become too easy to blame government for our own shortcomings.

Let's look closely at where accountability needs to be: Whether guns or lawn mowers, once a safe functioning product has been provided, it is the user, not the manufacturer who is the accountable party. When it comes to an agency in charge of safe water, the EPA, not any other party, is accountable. To delegate the responsibility is to have no accountability. Which is where govt bureaucracies like to position themselves. We shouldn't be discussing whether the EPA should pay for the damage caused. Rather, the EPA should not be so inept as to be implicit in these sort of events. How hard is it to keep containment walls from being breached?

I see no fault. If a manufacturing defect exists within a gun, or a lawnmower, how is the user to be held accountable? As I see it, there was a contractor, (the trucking firm), a customer, (the EPA,) and an end user, (the Navajo residents of the area). There were no sub-contractors. I do not know for a fact, but I'm guessing that there was no contract between the EPA and the Navajo regarding trucking in water. But I'm willing to bet that one certainly exists between the EPA and the trucking concern.

Personally I don't think that should make any difference, but I know that many on the forum place a great emphasis on literal interpretation and crossing those T's and dotting those I's. If that be the case, then where does legal accountability for this fiasco lie? Once again I don't think that should matter, as I'm comfortable recognizing the intent behind the action.


edit...I see the post I replied to has been changed somewhat, so perhaps this post has lost relevancy. I will keep my post original, as I'm too lazy to go back and edit.....

"as I'm comfortable recognizing the intent behind the action."

Wow, that's pretty easy to hide behind and foster an out of control government. Feelings are what matter. A government of feelings. A constitution of feelings. Our country is lost.

As to when the EPA will take control of our ponds, not for a while. This little power grab was just to desensitize us so they can get away with doing so in another 5 or 10 years. The only silver lining in this event that they won't have enough bureaucrats to see all their micro management dreams come true.

Sprkplg: *Good to keep the quote there, it clarifies my original post and your response is correct. I'm editing in 'preview' now rather than posting then editing. My bad.

SoSauty, my position might be better understood by reading through all of the pages in this thread. Page three, post # 414391 would be a good starting point.

Mine too.

Not wishing to be combative, just that idea of "intent" vs means testing is where we are today, and its' implications for the near future are scary. I've read all posts of this thread, see post #416054. I've just retired from teaching, common core and such. Nothing but one big bureaucratic erasure of accountability. Lots of little rehashed old ideas repackaged without a viable method to determine what's effective.

If an agency can't measure up, that's a good place to start cutting. Out here in Alabama, the TVA regularly has environmental spills, usually a containment berm gives way. There are few incentives to get it done right. TVA gets fined and we pay higher rates. Just makes TVA a govt collection agency. Voting and decision making on "feelings" rather than scientific principle and results, is and will continue to be our country's downfall.

I do agree that the spill probably won't make a great difference in 3 years.

Change is nearly always scary, but most often necessary, nonetheless.

Farm Bureau did a little analysis of "Waters of the USA"
Fact or Fiction - interesting
http://www.fb.org/tmp/uploads/FACT_or_FICTION-Copy.pdf

The Farm Bureau has it's own agenda.

They poo poo any study to determine if the increasing number of irrigation wells will have an effect on the aquifers in my state. Any plans to restrict water usage are immediately blocked by the Indiana Farm Bureau.

I have to wonder when I see the farmer across the road pumping 800 gpm during a driving rainstorm. Some crank them up even when there is a 100 percent chance of rain within hours. We see more and more government subsidized irrigation wells popping up and the state has no plans to monitor ground water levels.

Near me there is a field of corn without irrigation and one with. This year there doesn't seem to be any difference.

The manager of a trout rearing station north of me says he can tell when the big commercial farms start pumping.

Ask Esshup what happens to his pond and ground water level when the irrigation wells crank up.

That's a good point CB. Where I went to school in San Marcos, TX an outfit would give glass bottom boat tours, now the aquifer has dropped dropped and the business went away. On the flip side, the farms aren't farming in the So San Juaquin Valley in Cali. There's enough water in the Sacremento R. and a wonder of a canal system, the Friant Kern Canal, to transfer the water. The EPA is blocking the water for farms because of a non-native minnow, which numbers less than a 100 and could be preserved in a couple of 40 gal aquariums. The original intent of the endangered species act was to protect ONLY native species, but now that's out of control as inevitably the EPA will soon be.

My stance is that state concerns could and should be handled by the states. This is not the 1st nor the 21st environmental disaster event, involving a containment berm being overseen by the EPA. If the agency causes more problems than it solves, dismantle it, especially if it's federal, and incentivize the states to step up.

As to Fin'Fur's point, yes the Farm Bureau has a vested interest. What I read in the article is that farms ought to have equal respresentation when it comes to water use concerns, not delegated to a "lesser politically favored status."

Thats nothing new - everybody has a agenda to some degree.
Including the EPA which are driven by appointed folks tied to the green movement.
They make it sound like everyone else is promoting dirty polluted water and it
ain't so.
EPA also uses your taxes to get public support for their proposal through social media.
Its against the law but will never get prosecuted.
They had the law finalized and printed before the time period closed for opinions.
We have federal agencies making law with out congress - We have no vote in the matter anymore.

FINnFUR, some people don't care who makes the laws. They don't even care if it's legal for an agency to make a law. All some people care about is that a law is made. When we do this, we have NO law. If you get to break the law by making the law then there is no law.

By the way sparky, I do and have had people watch over my shoulder when I work on firearms. I find it quite enjoyable.

Watching is fine. But do they advise you on how to bore the chamber, or enlighten you on a better way to add rifling to the barrel? Big difference.

People have not done this only because if they already knew how to do that then I wouldn't be working on their rifle. I have no idea what in the heck this has to do with a rogue bureaucracy that savages that public.

I'll lay it out. When I brought up the idea of customers watching you back in post #421850, I was using that as an example to demonstrate "who's really doing this work anyway?"

By using an example you are familiar with, I was casting you in the role of the contractor, (the trucking company), and your customer, as a customer, (the EPA).

The customer came to you, the contractor, to have a rifle built.
The customer (EPA) came to the contractor, (the trucking firm), to have water hauled.

Your customer stands over your shoulder, advising you (contractor) as to the best way to build his rifle.....like you state, that's pointless as it's your job as contractor to build that rifle, and if your customer could build it him/herself they wouldn't need to contract with you in the first place.

The EPA (customer) enlists the services of the contractor (the trucking firm), because they are unable or unwilling to haul their own water.

So, are you ok with your customer standing over your shoulder, picking up your tools, asking you to explain every detail, offering advice on how you should be doing the job, or do you politely suggest that you are aware of what you're doing, and could they please let you work?

So then, should the EPA (customer) do the same to their contractor, (trucking firm?)Micromanaging every step along the way? Or do they proceed under the assumption that they, like you, know what they are doing and let them get to it without standing over their shoulder?

Then when the rifle doesn't live up to expectations, or the water is contaminated, whose fault is it? You and a few others, are telling me it's the customer's (the EPA), for not being more active in the process, and getting involved at every step. Do you want your customers being that involved while you're building their rifle?

I think the EPA certainly shares in the blame here. SHARES....from the sound of things, the trucking company also has some explaining to do. But why does the media source quoted in this thread fail to make that connection? In my opinion, that's because they, like many, spend a great deal of time looking for something to be wrong, and twist and manipulate, and contort the "facts" in whatever manner best suits their ideals. I don't align myself with any one faction, be it political, economic, religious, whatever. There are good and bad elements to ALL of them. Failing to recognize this, is why I think so many, get so fired up over so little.

sprkplug, what you don't get and you never will is that the damn indians are the customer. The indians, in this case, are the plaintiffs and the customer. You know how our noble government employees like to shroud themselves with the word "servant" to make themselves so noble, don't you? Well the epa was supposed to be "serving" the indians. This makes the Indians the customer AND because the Indians were also damaged (twice) they will most probably me plaintiffs. The epa is the customer of the trucking company, so what? The epa is accountable to make sure that they use quality subs to get the job done. The problem is that there is most probably not a quality human being in the entire epa to make this call.

The epa doesn't have to pick up the tools of the trucking company to make sure that job is done right. What most of us responsible people do is CHECK stuff! Before I ship a rifle I test fire it. Before I accept sub'd parts I check them. Before a building contractor has a sub do a job he checks references and then still checks the work. These are things that people with profit motives do in the real world. Of course you would most probably be one of the brighter people in the world if you responded to profit. If you're stupid, you just go get employed by the feds.

Well, I'm in agreement. I'm not sure what a rogue bureaucracy that savages the public has to do with a thread that discusses a private trucking company delivering contaminated water in dirty tanks that they, the private company, may have sourced without government intervention.

It is confusing.

I'm sorry Tim, I didn't mean to upset you. I never considered any of this personal, I'm sorry that you don't feel the same. It's not worth hard feelings on anyone's part.

Oh, one more thing sprkplg, get back to us all on who at the epa gets fired/terminated for causing this pollution to be set free in this river. Then let us know who at the epa gets canned for not inspecting the water delivered to the Indians. Nobody will! Notta, no one. No accountability will take place. Someone might get a transfer though.

Us common folks, with brains, don't like losing money, failing, looking bad to customers. We like to win, have happy customers, and don't except our subs or employees to make multi million dollar mistakes time and time again.

Seems like there is no problem with Tim fixing/making rifles-
The problem is EPA and most government agencies can't pick good contractors- aleast they have failed on hauling water , retaining toxic waste , making websites for Obama care and the list goes on and on. Too much elbow rubbing .
But don't fret when Hillary gets in she will explain it all. "Bush did it"

sprkplug, you'll have to look at the lawsuit the Navajo put on the epa to understand it. We get to pay that lawsuit if it is paid. The epa will have to sue the trucking company for their ineptness but that doesn't forgive the morons of the epa for not inspecting the work.

The federal government is good at one thing, war. They need to stay out of the rest.

I'm not at all upset, I am still saddened that you have no regard for the US Constitution. If I'm upset, it would be at my government for having gone so astray.

The EPA plays a vital role. If individual states were allowed to set their own environmental standards, it would be a race to the bottom. Job poaching governors and state legislators would ease environmental regulations (such as they currently offer tax credits and deferments) in effort to allure industries to their respective states. The Great Lakes and the entire Gulf Coast would be a cesspool, and states like Colorado would have EVEN MORE toxic waste pits left behind for the taxpayers to clean up, after the mining companies have extracted the profits.

Creating the EPA is undoubtedly Richard Nixon's greatest achievement. Is the EPA perfect? Certainly not, but that doesn't mean that the baby should be thrown out with the toxic bathwater.

Well if your right the EPA of Nixon is not the EPA of today - this one answers to no one .
And makes their own laws, fines and penalties. They are the judge and jury.

And I don't think any state wants to turn their place into a cesspool . I don't know of any that don't have a eviromental law enforcement section and have passed laws to prevent the tragedies you mention from recurring

I agree 100% gully washer. And if there were no EPA, what would we do with interstate river systems? If it were left up to the individual states, there's no way they could agree on common standards, pollution wise. The folks downstream would always be aggravated with the states upstream, claiming their standards were too lax, and they were sending pollution downstream for another state to have to deal with.

Having static water confined within a state's borders is one thing. But then again, what about the underground aquifers? I'm not aware of any that respect state borders.

We NEED a common, federal protection and standard for this stuff. What we have isn't perfect by a long shot, but it's a far cry better than nothing at all.

I find this semi-humorous. The EPA or any government agency doesn't, with a few exceptions, get to pick their contractor. EVERYTHING is lowest bidder, from parts to construction. Exception examples, before someone else throws it out there, include a $400 hammer in the 1980's and the NASA shitter for a whopping $2000 . When one consistently awards lowest bidder, s**t happens, literally.

Having worked with a number of government contractors, as one of the people, it is never as straight forward as trusting a contractor. You get what you pay for which means you have to watch like a hawk or something gets jacked. Sometimes things get missed, sometimes the gov't agency is lazy, sometimes they are understaffed, and sometimes there are mistakes made. Without understanding the entire story I would be cautious to blame one entity entirely. Not saying the EPA is not at fault, they are but to what degree. The contractor is mostly definitely at fault.

On numerous occasions we have knowingly awarded contracts to companies that are going to cost more in the long run, do crappy jobs, or try to employ illegal immigrants (one of my favorites). We have no choice, lowest bidder gets the job, it sucks. The only thing you can do is document where they jack up and hope that it is enough to remove them from future contracts.

Side note: When you are POTUS sponsoring healthcare you can pick whichever contractor you wish, nobody is going to tell you no.

I don't know about the $400 hammer, but if I were in a low to zero gravity environment and needed to use the toilet, 2000 bucks would be ok with me if the darn thing worked to my satisfaction. That does NOT sound like the kind of place I would like to experience faulty plumbing!!

No sprk, my understanding is zero gravity toilets are in the millions of dollars. Still worth the money especially if you are an astronaut!!! If there are any Big Bang Theory watchers, Howard's zero gravity toilet that shoots meatloaf, funny stuff!

I thought that seemed kinda' cheap for a cosmic crapper.

I'll beat the drum louder, there are NO enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8 for an epa, a department of education, fda, batfe, or most any of the other alphabet soup agencies. Now, some of these things sound like really neat ideas BUT, if they're so darn nice, how come the tyrants that wanted them couldn't amend the Constitution to get them? The law was broken to make laws. If you do this, the law means nothing.

There's a reason Japanese American's were put in concentration camps during WWII, it's because when things are convenient, our federal government breaks the law. Those who want things done quickly turn a blind eye and crap on their neighbor when the government does it. Just remember, when the feds come for you, some of us might just cheer them.

Any coward can cry out when their ox is being gored. It takes a man of courage to fight for their neighbors ox.

Seriously, nixen? You talk up a crook, a circumventor of the Constitution, a thing that had to resign or be impeached, I won't even get into its trespass on those who did drugs or its dabbling in the gold standard and bastardization of the Republican Party.

Who says the great lakes would be a cess pool? I never got the memo. Lake Michigan looked great in 1970 and it looks almost as good today. Lake Erie has probably benefited from the epa but had more help from the zebra mussel.

Bottom line, I really don't care if these progressive government units made everyone rich by implementing them. If the Constitution is broken to do it, it is simply against the law. Many of us are tired of having our freedoms taken away so that others can have perceived security.

If you are employed by the federal government, let me help you. You can use bidders besides the lowest bidder by using your Federal Acquisition Regulations. I won't get into all the rules of FAR but one very clear rule is that the bidder " MUST be determined to be fully responsive to the needs of the government." Seeing as the feds have bastardized the rest of the law, it should be very easy for even the simplest of government employees to make this rule mean whatever you want.

I am not implying that you are employed as a federal employee, I would never slander anyone that badly. I just wasn't sure if you are a federal employee because your post seemed to be couched in two different directions.

I looked it up...19 million bucks for a zero gravity toilet. How much for a bidet and new countertops?

This thread has become very nasty and political. It violates many of our forum rules. At this point, it has little to do with private waters management.

I ask that several of you please clean up your very negative comments, that have nothing to do with pond management issues.

We do not wish to lock or erase any threads, but ...

Catmandoo
(Ken Grymala)
Moderator

It is very unfortunate that an agency that is supposed to be aligned with the environmental protection that most members of this forum fully support, elicits such vitriol in our group. That seems to be a symptom of how this branch of the EPA has behaved, or at least is perceived. As a land owner, pond enthusiast, and passionate wildlife habitat restorer, I share a fear of the new rules. I think that this subject is relevant to the forum, so let's keep it civil, please.

Great points Catmandoo. I'll go with Thomas Paine who said "[Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
-- Thomas Paine

So, to our federal employees, even the best of you. You all are necessarily evil.

Stupid may be harsh. Is evil stupid or brilliant?

It is frightening that the speak of our founding fathers is looked upon now as offensive by the ninnys in our federal government and progressives. When we start losing our ponds, I guess some might get it.


"I consider the foundation of the [Federal] Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
-- Thomas Jefferson, "Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank" [February 15, 1791]

While we may be politically aligned, lets keep the connection to ponds and habitat and off of politics on this site as the moderators have requested. Please!

And even if we are not politically aligned, my hope is that we should still be able to discuss relevant issues calmly, rationally, and open-mindedly. Subject matter such as that presented in this thread does have a direct link to our ponds, our lands, and or lifestyles. We should strive to debate and discuss intelligently.

With emphasis on intelligence.

On a lighter note, anyone remember my concern over my neighbor's chickens, from earlier in this thread? Here's what they look like today:





Yes, that is cracked corn on the ground. Any yes, now we're feeding them everyday. Turns out they weren't so bad after all.

You are just plumping them up now so you can eat later!

And I wouldn't blame him!

Both of you bite your tongues! I'm confident you're both aware of the scenario whereby livestock move over into the "pet" category?

And to be honest, I had forgotten how much simple pleasure could be had just from watching chickens. We had them around home of course, but that was a long time ago. One scored a cicada earlier and it was a free-for-all for a time. Very entertaining.

Naturally they are roosters, driven off by the dominant rooster next door. But maybe a hen will defect one of these days.

We've gotten several complaints about this thread, FYI, so it's good to see it return to a more civil and pleasant interchange.

Never been a firm believer of livestock being a pet. I am working on desensitizing my kids from that line of thinking, we always visit the cow we get at least once and name it prior to its departure to our dinner plates. So far so good, nobody has refused to eat. AT some point we will be getting chickens, some heads of cattle, and potentially a pig or two. I really do not want them getting attached.

My kids are old enough now we don't have to worry about that issue. But I remember how it was!

When I was growing up we always made pets out of the livestock, but there was never an issue having it for dinner. Guess our stomachs' overruled any emotional attachment. It was always understood that the reason for having that animal in the first place, was for food.

Yes ,we raise Delaware chickens here and they are comical to say the least.
Wait until you see one catch a mouse and free for all on who gets to eat it whole LOL
Some times when I want a break I just pull up to the chicken compound and sit back and relax . Watch the show.
Keep on throwing the corn and don't worry about age or sex as the crock pot makes em all tender.

It is even more fun when they catch a small snake -- less than about 20 inches. They play keep-away with it by continually catching and throwing it in the air until it dies of exhaustion. Then they all share in the feast. We let ours, plus our guinea fowl, free range most of the time. They sure keep the ticks down, and no snake in its right mind dares to come close.

What do you guys feed your chickens? We've been feeding the cracked corn since all we have are roosters, is there a more suitable feed? I don't remember what we fed at home.

I always got more steak if I reminded my little sisters we were eating "Pete" and "Tilly." Worked like a charm!

My dad's outfit in Vietnam had a pet snake (I think boa constrictor). Anyway they would feed it chickens. One day someone screwed up and got a live bird from the market that could evade the snake and even poke it's eyes out. I think he said it was like a road runner. It was quickly pointed out by a native that that was not the bird to have in the cage with it.

We feed Rock N Rooster pellets from southern states coop - put you can buy good scratch grains from almost any feed store and Tractor supply also.
Plain corn is low on the nutritional scale. But foraging around they are mostly after bugs .

Thanks Fin, I figured the corn was somewhat lacking.

Don't ever let your kids and/or grandkids name the catfish.

"Hello? People that live in the house, we're out here and we're ready for breakfast....hello? Anyone in there?"



Chickens in the yard, fine. Chickens paying me a visit inside the shop, I guess so. Chickens on the porch, staring in the windows, yeah that's not going to work for me. Note to family: Move feeding area further away from house.

LOL.

I see a little chicken poop on the deck too!

Get the fryer ready - this is ridiculous.

I had to remove the screens from my basement office windows. They are at ground level. Our chickens loved to watch me at the computer. They ruint the screens so they could make more noise pecking on the window.

I was at the neighbors this morning bushogging what was left of his garden and turning his big compost piles with my front-end loader. The compost pile had a family of young moles living in it. My young helper grabbed several of the moles, and we threw them one at a time into my friend's chicken pen. What an incredible spectator sport. Kind of like watching a soccer match of five year olds. When I told my bride, she said in the 40+ years she has known me, she never knew I was so sadistic!

Sprk, they weren't saying "we're out here and we're ready for breakfast." It was "we are out here ready to BE your breakfast!"

Hold on fellas', I may not remember every detail from my childhood concerning having chickens, but I most certainly do remember plucking them....it ain't happening.

According to this week's Illinois Farm Bureau's weekly newspaper, "Farm Week", WOTUS is scheduled to become law this coming Friday.

The exchange has been very positive. Some would like their ideas to carry the day by poo pooing basic foundational principals that had(has) made America the most prosperous and beneficial nation in the history of this planet. It is civil for sugar coated clichés to be confronted by reason.

After learning about the EPA, yes, they are illegitimate constitutionally and cause almost as many problems as they solve presently. What a shame it would be to say, "all well, there has to be change." Let's step up to our civic responsibilities, and bring on positive change, such as state govt.s being responsible to the concerns expressed here. Chickens are fluffy, (and fun to discuss for a break) but I'm primarily interested in info enabling me to make intelligent decisions as a civic minded pond owner.

I plan to inoculate my new pond with 10,000 gal of creek water. Ethically, either the water comes from the creek, or I catch the 10,000 gal from runoff preventing it from entering the creek, plus it's legal, for now. Will I be able to do so with another property in the future?

The local public 120 acre fishing lake is closed this year for renovation. All catches are to be reported. When it reopens, will it be legal for me to remove a half dozen RES to plant in my pond if the EPA gets charge?

Not so sure the U.S. is the most prosperous nor most beneficial in the world anymore. We're only number one in size of military spending and incarcerations. Everything else we are no longer number one.

As far as beneficial we need to stay out of country's we don't belong in and concentrate our efforts here.

Oh wait we are the world's number one oil producer now.

Uh oh there goes the neighborhood again!

When this thread gets shut down and deleted, don't pretend that we were not given every chance to get back to ponds.

How is your pond doing RAH? Did you get the smallies going yet?

Thank you for asking. I added an additional 100 fingerling YP this spring after seeing unfertilized eggs. I may not add the SMB until I see small YP. I am also hoping that this will allow the dozen LCS to grow a bit. I now have a lot of submerged plants and want to see if the curly leaf pondweed will provide winter cover when the summer weeds die down. I may add a very small number of small SMB next year, but may wait another year. I want to get the forage way ahead of the SMB so I can grow trophies. In the mean time, I am planning another pond.

Sosauty, this thread, and most all the discussion, had everything to do with ponds. I've said this before, I make guns. The atf and this president has done everything they can to make it very hard for me to make a living at the only profession specifically protected under the Bill of Rights. Now the epa wants in your ponds. Don't think they want in your pond? I don't remember many, if any, instances where our government has wanted to get smaller.

When the feds get into your ponds, you will sing the same tune as the fish suppliers sing and many of them feel government at the federal and State level make life miserable. How many private fish hatchery's we down to in Michigan now? Gee, wonder why? Two simple examples below that I hear complaints on from time to time.
-Harassed by police under the federal motor carrier act. Actually legal under the US Constitution but congress needs to make the laws, they cannot be "delegated" to unelected officials.
-Handicapped by migratory bird laws. Sounds great, pass an Amendment.

Some of you want the epa to actually be involved in your private waters. Some of your concerns are actually valid and do require some amount of regulation. The problem isn't that those in this camp have bad ideas on regulation, it's that the regulation is ILLEGAL under the US Constitution. Pass an Amendment to the Constitution and then regulate away. You won't have the votes though now will you. When you don't have the votes, you simply circumvent.

Our founders knew damn well that government likes to grow. Article 1 Section 8 is there for a reason and this is that reason. Where did the epa start from and what has it gotten to now? It started out as a noble cause to get us clean air and clean water, something everybody wants, right? Well we got this noble cause with an illegal formation of a federal agency. We are now at the point where the epa wants to regulate your pond, ditches that hold water for particular amounts of time... it will NOT end. There will be a time when the water from your well tap is metered. We already have laws on how much water a toilet can use.

I could go on but let's get back to chickens. For Pete's sake we don't want to have a spirited discussion and point out law breakers, crooks, and mental midgets of the federal government.

You need some chickens around those ponds, RAH. Cute, fluffy chickens. By an odd coincidence, I know where you might secure a few.

I am again reminding everyone to please keep this civil and non-political. It is a very important subject for those of us who are, or who plan to be, private water managers on our properties.

This is not a left/right, Republican/Democrat issue. It is a controversial and strong bipartisan issue that affects our whole nation. There are multiple senators, on both sides of the issue, who are working very hard behind the scenes with each other to try and smooth out this issue.

Our state has two very good US senators. One is a Republican, US Senator Shelly Moore Capito. The other is US Democrat senator, Joe Mansion. Both are working on resolving this issue, and want these restrictions to stay local within the state.

I know that US Senators Frankin and Klobuchar of Minnesota (Land of 10,000 Lakes) are working hard on overturning or modifying this issue because Minnesota has some of the strongest state government private/public water laws in the nation. They want them to stay local.

I believe these new guidelines will be implemented as of next week, but it will take quite some time for them to have serious effects. As we've said on Pond Boss for several years, please contact your US representatives and your US senators with your concerns.

Griping about them here, without action on your part with your elected representatives, only pits us against each other on a subject we all pretty much agree upon. It also gives us moderators ulcers when you start attacking each other, our government employees, and sometime us moderators.

Ken

We need a border collie first to guard them. Tired of feeding the mink, coyotes, fox, weasels, owls, hawks, and raccoon (not sure what political party they are). We plan on trying the ancona breed next time. We have the pen area cleared and ready to build, but they will likely fly out and wander once they are able. We are in the middle of a large property, so they will not bother anyone else. Without a dog, they will be toast.

Yeah I'm pretty surprised that these down here have lasted this long.

Boys, ya need a Foghorn Leghorn.

RAH, what is the status of your LCS? If my memory is correct you stocked them last fall. Do you see them, have they reproduced, and do you know the current size?

I put in an email with my senators, Sessions and Shelby. They are good strong principled men, but may be in the minority. The EPA appears to have backed away from this power grab. Yet likely the agency will learn from this foray, wait for the controversy to go away, then attempt some expedient no ethics power grab again. It's a good time to prepare ourselves by understanding just how the agency could affect our pond management. Glad the neighborly chicken problem was resolved without resorting to fried rooster recipes. They're good for bug management.

I want to learn more on this issue, this is as a good of a forum for the discussion as it gets. Every so often, someone will deliver a real nugget of information or delivers a point of view about the EPA that's astounding.

Both the Cayuga River up north and the Houston shipping canal used to catch fire years ago. Did a Fed agency bring about their cleanup or did the states, can't say TX is known to be environmentally progressive, do it on their own? Lots to learn.

I think that I stocked them this spring, but have not seen them since release, but the pond is 1 acre and I have not seen much but FHM. The submerged plants are thick near the edges, so I am not surprised. I figure that I'll stock a few SMB no later than 2017. I may also stock a small number of GC if the weeds do not subside with the goal of reduction rather than elimination. I am planning to slowly raise the water level a few inches a year once the marginal plants get thick, with the total increase being 12 inches over 3 years. I did this on my last pond once the bald cypress got going and I liked the result. I use inlet boxes from AgriDrain to do this. So far, it has worked out well.

Raising your pond level over 3 years to allow the establishment of vegetation, what an outstanding idea!

Given a better vantage point, man has always been able to glimpse something evil on the distant horizon. I'm just not sure I need to climb to the top of the mountain to try and justify my need to sound the alarm.

As I've stated in other fairly recent threads on this subject, I do believe the EPA would love to take control of my water. I just feel the time for them to be able to do so, hasn't arrived. And I doubt it will take place anytime soon. Be prepared, yes. Be paranoid over it, no.


Note: The chickens have entrenched themselves into daily life around our home. Still wonder where they're roosting at night, though.

Makes sense to me.

Another pond!?

Kind of like FA. It is just short green fuzzy stuff on the bottom. No unsightly floating globs on the surface yet. So why worry about it?

I see where you're going snrub, but to my way of thinking a more accurate comparison would be the transition from short, green fuzzy stuff on the bottom, to full blown bank-to-bank surface coverage and fish dying.

There's a fair distance in between those two scenarios - time enough to implement control measures, or possibly even to allow the natural cycle to prevail: cold water periods that will probably curtail the FA used in this example. Or political climate change and/or aggressive counter legislation to prevent another.

Being a long-time officer of the West Virginia Aquaculture Association this is a subject I've followed nearly since its inception. It is something that all landowners and pond owners should educate themselves about.

When I mentioned writing to your US Senators, I failed to mention why just write to the Senators. I made the incorrect assumption that people have been following this closely. The House of Representatives already passed a bill restricting the changes to the clean water act. It is now up to the Senate to come up with their version and take it to committee with the House.

Additionally, I know of at least six major lawsuits currently filed against the EPA regarding the changes to the CWA. One of them is by the State of West Virginia.

Lastly, there have been a number EPA actions that have been adjudicated by the US Supreme Court since 2001. In every single instance, the EPA has lost the battle.

It will go into affect this week, but it has already been very badly wounded. I believe it will be challenged at nearly every turn by local governments, state governments and big corporations with deep pockets. I agree with Sparky's "Be prepared, yes. Be paranoid over it, no."

Again, I request that everyone please keep this civil. Educate yourself from legitimate sources of information.

Ken

Sparky, I always enjoy your post here and I have learned from your post here. But I think we might very well be at different sides of the table on some things. I enjoy a good debate every once in a while And I am not happy with some of the things with our gubberment as I am sure you feel the same. But I don't care to take the wait and see road here. And you being from Freedom Ind.

Tracy

I know, Tracy. And that's okay. That's why tables have different sides in the first place. It would get pretty crowded with everyone on the same side, eating whatever was set before us, all in unison.

I'm okay with sitting by myself, and asking to see a menu.

Well said sprkplug

Tony missed his calling as a diplomat! That or he has teenagers and has developed some skills to deal with them! And no I'm not calling anyone a teenager here.

Judge Blocks Obama Administration’s Rule On Waterways

The EPA and corps of enginners already officially regulates small streams, tributaries, and wetlands in my state. How is this anything new?

As a fish farmer I have limits on waste discharge from my farm, and I sure can't dig up wetlands.



Sounds like a good thing to me. People discharge raw sewage into the local river and we have feed lots on a few lake inlets. One inlet to a lake that is on the largest undeveloped lake chain in the state sits on top an old landfill. When we get heavy rain that part of the lake turns brown. This is a formerly 93 foot deep lake that supported lake trout, native cisco and smelt. The cisco and smelt are gone.

We have lake residents that seem to need golf course lawns. I wonder what they do to get them?

The State is slow to respond due to the tremendous power of the Farm Bureau and lack of funding. The DNR's hands are tied. Maybe it's time the feds came in and ruffled some feathers.

Maybe your a farmer and want to fertilize the fields next to a pond/ditch or maybe you need to get a bloom started and want to fertilize your pond. How about treating FA or pond weeds with chemicals.

I'm sure the EPA would be happy to give you a permit...or not...for a small fee.

Those of us in the free states are aghast that anyone could see this as a good thing.

I'm not seeing your specific concerns in what I've read.

Mkay......all the afore mentioned chemicals I just mentioned might find there way down a ditch or over a spillway and therefore must be regulated. The government controlling our ponds/lakes and surrounding properties is not ok down here.

Down here? Free states? C'mon now, we're bigger than that.

Honestly, can it really be okay to apply whatever the h*** you want, without any regard to where the runoff ends up? Even in Texas?

It is okay to apply whatever the heck you want, even in Texas, if Texas says so! Texas is a very free state and it is bigger than all of us, a state still full of people who actually like the US Constitution and make people account to it. If some of you want a nanny state, some more laws, great, get the votes and amend the Constitution. Until then, the free states would simply like to follow the current law.

The issue in my mind is who has the burden of proof. Does the land owner have to get permission and then prove what he wants to do will be environmentally OK, or does the government need to prove the landowner broke rules and caused environmental damage. I want to put in another pond, but do not want to jump through silly (and expensive) government hoops to do it. This is the difference between good and bad regulation. Bad regulation is a drain on society.

Absolutely no one is surprised that the Ambassador Of Over Regulation wants.......More Regulation.

I personally feel that there is no "them", there is only "us". All 50 of us. And all 50 of us are free. The "sides" implied or spoken of here in this thread are sides of the same coin. A few would portray a division where none should exist, Texas or no.

I'm both baffled and amused by the idea that some would apparently halt the fire truck en route to the blazing forest, because the vehicle failed to display DOT identification. We, ALL of us, share that forest the same way we share the water. Its protection should fall to all of us in my eyes. Articles, sections, paragraphs, and founding fathers....all of us.

Just to be clear, I still feel that the current regulation will get no traction. That doesn't mean we shouldn't watch that horizon, it means we don't need to scale the mountain to get a better look just yet. Some here are protesting the rule itself, which I understand and appreciate. But some appear to be more concerned with the delivery method rather than the rule itself. This issue has the potential to affect us all, later rather than sooner. And we should be discussing it, and planning for that future. I'm hopeful that productive discourse will continue, but I'm all done with wondering about the firetruck.

If new regulations help to maintain or provide cleaner water for all of us, then yes, you are correct. Federal, state, local....whatever. We share the water. Unless you have excavated your entire property down below the aquifer, and have blocked it off at your property lines to prevent any flowing water, surface and subterranean, by installing the world's biggest pond liner, then the water that is on your property today may well be on your neighbor's tomorrow.

That's how it works. Even in Texas.

My Mother passed away a few yr's back and one of the things I remember her saying to me, when we were at a family member birthday party. She said, "I have never liked authority" She knew me pretty well. I will buck more often than not when it comes to someone or something telling me what I can do or not do. As I have grown older I have become a little more passive, but that Rebel blood still comes out in me to this day. But my age has also made me stand more toward being a constitutionalist. So long live private lands and private waters.

Tracy

We all use the term private water, and understand what it means. But I submit that a more accurate description would be "water located on private land". Land is more or less static....water is not. Private or otherwise, it leaks, drains, flows and otherwise moves.

Even in Texas.

Tbar, that is funny but so true

Tracy

I just saw where a judge blocked it, at least temporarily.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/.../?intcmp=hplnws

Had I just joined the forum this morning, it might be easy to resort to name calling and labeling, or to form opinions about folks unfounded in fact but based solely on emotion. It has been my good fortune however, to rub shoulders with Bob Lusk and highflyer in 100 degree heat in Indiana, drill holes through 12" of ice on a frozen lake in Illinois with Fireishot, and risk being run over with Mike Otto while rescuing a broken down piece of equipment alongside a highway in Nebraska.

To the last man, these individuals carried themselves in the same manner. Extremely knowledgeable, equally willing to share as well as listen, modest, open to ideas other than their own, passionate with their beliefs while extending compassion towards another point of view, and always, always willing to work together. I have never had the pleasure of meeting Dave Davidson, but I feel very confident I would find him to be cut from that same piece of cloth. Texans to the last man.

As I type this, another Texan prepares to walk the new path into the greener woods. From a single photo posted yesterday, I can see peace, determination, dignity, and a smile. When the time arrives for me to walk that same path, I hope I can lace up my boots in a similar fashion.

These six gentlemen define the qualities that come to mind when I think of Texas. Or Indiana. Or our country for that matter. Thankfully I'm aware that all places, have all kinds. I don't have to resort to snap judgements based on incomplete information.

And those six guys from Texas? They aren't wasting time posting to this thread. Which goes to show they are a lot smarter than I am.

I think I will post here. I don't think I'm smarter than anyone else and prove it almost every day. Just ask my Wife.

If government of any kind, at any level, was the answer, Texas City on the Gulf Coast would not be a toxic, pollution ridden, mess. People have been dying for a long time there at much higher rates than anywhere else. And the problem has been traced directly to the chemical companies and their effluents. They spend a lot of $ making sure that they have politician friends on a local, state and national level. A lot of $ to them would be a rounding error for any of us.

But, there is something called pollution credits that can be purchased and traded on the open market that allows this travesty.

I'm an ex lobbyist on the State and Federal level. I have testified in Austin and Washington. And, I've been a "bag man" to assure that I/We had friends. Money talks and it takes surprising little.

If the EPA or any government agency were bribe proof, I might believe in them.

I'll stop here, but over a beer, I could go for hours.

August 28th: ND Federal Judge Halts WOTUS
Federal judge Ralph Erickson granted a temporary injunction to states challenging the implementation of the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers’ “Waters of the United States” rule Thursday. In his opinion, Erickson stated, “On balance, the harms favor the states,” referring to the risk of irreparable cost of being forced to comply with the rule on the state level. He also implied the states will win the suit, saying, "--- it appears likely that the EPA has violated its Congressional grant of Authority.”