Thank goodness all landowners who wish to create a pond or lake on their land no longer has to fear the insane power grab the EPA made, called "The Waters Of The United States" regulation, which made all water, on, under, or above the US geographical borders fall under EPA control. The rule was just essentially eliminated by Executive Order. This was one of the most abused regulations in history!

At least for another 4 or 8 years.

Two downsides to executive orders. One is if the person you did not want in office gets in you may not like the executive orders he implements. Two is when a new president comes in the old orders can be reversed if they were ones you liked.

So the next go round may be a reverse of the reverse, if that makes any sense.

But for today, hooray!

Congress could easily fix this. Lets hope they do so ASAP.

The inevitable has been postponed.

Great news! EPA has over stepped it reach too often recently.

If you get a project done while the rules are in abeyance, if they come back your project would be grandfathered in.

Not really, John. Several people were locked off their lands after the EPA was shot down by SCOTUS, and then got worse when the prior admin re-created the same rule SCOTUS called the Reg, the most outrageous power grab ever and gutted the reg.

Pretty appropriate/ironic that the biggest swamp needing drained, is the EPA, who has loons trying to call a puddle in a yard, a swamp.

Good news.

And rows in a field became 'mini mountain ranges'.
Congress will hopefully begin welding some doors shut.

It is sad that an agency tasked with protecting the environment is so disliked by those who share their mission. I share this dislike due to the bureaucratic mess that has shelved my plans to build a pond/wetland complex. In my case, the county surveyor asked the contractor for several "studies/assessments" that blew the budget. I understand that the environment needs to be protected, but when the process makes improving wildlife habitat too expensive, the result can be counter to the intended mission.

I'm in your corner, RAH. We need environmental oversight, just not to the extreme that WOTUS brought us. But in no fashion should this recent overturn be one a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And I don't believe it will, as I've said all along what one administration puts up, another can tear down. I do think a variant of WOTUS is unavoidable in our future, but I realized early on that this most recent one was providing little cause for the emotional prophecies that were foretold.

In another couple decades, things will be different. The eventual outcome is seen by me as inescapable.

I am hoping that other Gov. bureaucratic offices will be reduced in size and in there goals of re-distribution of wealth. One comes to mind is the IRS, hoping new tax plan might help me keep some of my money to where I can distribute the cash. I might want to distribute it for a new pond, or a new tractor and etc. And Long live the new President In the past and maybe today, I think some of those gov employees are just jealous of land owners and because of that, they cause the unnecessary. Is that a word, unnecessary

Agree with you RAH, and in addition to that the fine structure that is designed to instill fear in small business and individuals. Often the punishment, or at least the threat of it, far exceeds the crime often times. The fines for multinational corporations is probably fine, but tens of thousands of dollars a day for an individual that cleaned out the ditch on the back of his property from the day he did it three years ago?

When you incent any agency, private or government, to maximize income to perpetuate their own jobs and livlihood, you get what you incent for. Usually this is a good thing in private enterprise. We call it capitalism. But when government agencies have incentives to maximize revenue, they loose sight of the purpose they are supposed to serve, which is the public good.

Policing for profit is another example where in some areas police need to confiscate property to fund salries and pensions. They focus on generating income instead of public good.

This is why I believe no government agency should be able to keep any fine money. All fines should go to whatever the main governing agency is (local, state or federal) and the elected public servants determine agency budgets to live within. This would stop the "government within the government" mission creep because the elected officials could always tighten the purse string to rein in an out of control agency, or give them more money if they wanted them to do more. When they are allowed to create their own income stream, they can become semi autonomous. I think that is where the EPA has been for years.

When a government agency has fear as its main enforcement component, rather than public good cooperation attitude, it is no wonder they are not well accepted.

I think confiscated property and fines should go to a fund that is set up to provide monies for;
- public education
- community welfare (animal shelters, soup kitchens, etc.)
- law enforcement continuing education

That would not be bad. Better than the way it is for sure.
.
Anything that would not give the agency reason or finances to grow or get beyond control of elected officials that still have to answer to the public.

To know what to expect it is my understanding that deceased SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia Plurality Opinion in Rapanos VS United States is what the current administration feels should be the limitation for guidance.

"The plurality opinion stated that the Clean Water Act confers federal jurisdiction over non-navigable waters only if the waters exhibit a relatively permanent flow, such as a river, lake, or stream. In addition, a wetland falls within the Corps' jurisdiction only if there is a continuous surface water connection between it and a relatively permanent waterbody, and it is difficult to determine where the waterbody ends and the wetland begins."

All very high-sounding but the WOTUS Rule was not about the enviornment or water, only power and control. As ewest said, congress needs to act.

The Scalia Opinion mentioned above is about the limits of Federal Jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.

Tums the opinion was not a constraint on EPA and they went far beyond. The reason was the opinion provided that EPA or Congress had authority to better define the rule. EPA took the nexus test from the opinion and other prior opinions and broadened the rule to claim authority over any water with a nexus to a navigable water. It includes dry land , small ditches with water only once in a while and more. That is why the lower courts invalidated the rule as beyond their power. The new order I believe instructs the Justice Dept not to proceed with any appeal of the lower courts holding and that EPA has to rewrite the rule. In the meantime Congress needs to greatly reduce the definition of WOTUS and provide that any regulation beyond that is a taking that requires compensation to the landowner.

The only part I am somewhat bummed about is the ability for the EPA to go after gross offenders in farming, such as drain tile dumping into a ditch heavily laden with fertilizers and other farming contaminates. This leads to some pretty bad BGA problems in nearby waterways and Red tide in the ocean. Discharge from farms should have some restrictions on what can enter public waterways, and can be reduced by better (more expensive) practices. From what I understand, local authorities turn a blind eye to these problems as it puts their neighbors and friends in a tough position. That is where the Federal government needs the ability go go in and force change without worry about local retaliation which can ultimately result in improvement in natural resources.

Otherwise I agree, huge overreach of power that I am happy to see go away.

There are plenty of avenues open to EPA and State level agencies to prevent real pollution (waste dumping etc).

I wonder if the definition of real pollution isn't what some, including myself, consider a sticking point. Who gets to decide what constitutes pollution?

If my ponds discharge fish, including non native or even indigenous species not found in local waterways, cutrine, fluridone, watermeal, duckweed, etc, into a neighbor's pond or even public water, isn't that a type of pollution?

The sticking point for me is that no proof of environmental damage is needed to impose fines. The fines are imposed for breaking rules that may be constructed so poorly as to prevent environmental benefit. In my case, the pond/wetland complex that I wanted to build would have had 100 acres of watershed from row cropland. Currently this watershed runs into a creek considered impaired by the US EPA.

The largest spill in fresh water that I can remember was caused by the EPA. That Holier than thow or smarter than the rest or lack of common sense is what bothers me.

But should all "polution" be the jurisdiction of the federal government? This looks like to me what you describe, based on the constitution, that this would be an issue for the states to address if they chose to do so. The federal government should only have power to regulate any polution that goes beyond state boundries and is of a national perspective.

A paralell example would be litterbug laws. Do we really want federal laws and federal fines for throwing trash along the roads? A federal trash agency and trash laws? Don't we already have more than enough Federal agencies and laws? After all, trash is a form of polution. This is a state issue and should be controlled by the state and the people that live in that state. But then I am for states rights and a very limited federal government. Governance closer to the people being governed.

So long as the local government will act. It's the same as different levels of law enforcement, (local, state, federal)....there needs to be a chain, a series of steps if the local government fails to act, or acts injustly.

If I lived next to you, snrub, and polluted your water with my actions, you would surely seek counsel with the local or state government. But what if they ruled in my favor...would you be satisfied with their decision, or would you pursue other, higher levels of government enforcement? That's my point. There NEEDS to be another level above the local and state. Sure, try to settle it at the state level, but have an agency at the fed, level ready to intervene if the need arises.

I believe damages are what civil courts are for. Those kinds of things are already accounted for in many existing laws.

If you do something that damages me or my property, you are liable for it.

Then why do we have a supreme court?

Layers, that's why. Start at the bottom when seeking satisfaction, work your way up the chain.

Again, if you don't receive satisfaction in civil court, are you just going to drop it, or would you go up the chain? It's nice having that higher authority when it works to our advantage, eh? I realize that this is an extreme example,but illustrates my point. There needs to be a final link in that chain, and it needs to be at the federal level.

Appeals are only heard if the law was not followed by the lower courts. Complicating simple things is a friend to those trying to get away with something. Federal pollution laws should only be protecting neighboring states.

It's those complications that worry me, RAH. Life in general is complicated. I knew that this scenario (wotus) would never fly, because the time isn't right for it to do so yet. But I perceive some would prefer the EPA be disbanded entirely, and I find that idea ridiculous.

Again, I'm all for local and state laws handling things. But when they dont, or wont, there needs to be another authority at a higher level.

Pollution is often perception, in the absence of guidelines. I have firsthand experience in this regard, and found local authority to be clueless, and state authority careless. But once I finally made contact on the federal level, which admittedly wasn't easy, things happened quickly and favorably for me. So I'm in favor of having that federal resource available, as a last option.

Sometimes simple is hard to get to. Last option is great, not first option. We need environmental regulation, but sometimes a bureaucracy gets so entrenched, that a reboot is needed.

Totally agree!

Spark, one could say then that the Supreme Court could be the final arbitrator if local and state issues needed to be escalated.

There really would not need to be a specific federal agency for every single category of dispute.

I'm not saying to abolish the EPA entirely, but does it need to be an "8 billion dollar" agency if it's only purpose is to resolve conflicts that couldn't be resolved at the state level?

'animals' done growed up.

None of us want dirty water, none of us are pro-pollution, but it is interesting to note for perspective...that it is the Feds...who are the biggest single polluter in the United States.

Yes "the fox guarding the chicken-house" pollutes the environment worse than anyone in America!

And since we are discussing waterways guess who the third largest polluter of US Waterways is? You guessed it, "the final chain", the US Federal Government is the 3rd largest polluter of US Waterways.

Third largest polluter of US Waterways

I am not trying to get overly political, and I will not take offense at this post getting removed if I cross a line.

At least the EPA has the ability to stand up to multi-national muti-billion dollar corporations that are trying to ravage local resources. Let's see an under-staffed state agency resist without caving in to pressure (or taking a payout). The federal level can barely withstand it. The EPA is a necessity to maintain balance between big business and citizenry.

That is the point of the desire to dismantle the EPA entirely. It is to allow business to do what business does best: eat resources like a giant caterpillar and leave behind a big pile of poo in the name of the almighty dollar. The Trump administration believes that America was great during the era when there were no restrictions on business so we can compete with countries like "Jina" and India, because you know, we envy their economic growth and ignore what they are doing to their environment and resources to get there.

I suppose if you are rich enough, you don't have to be anywhere near where the messes are being made, and that is why the Trump administration does not fear the repercussions of their actions. I fear we will be sent back to the days of dead lakes and rivers that catch on fire just so we can be great again.

It is tough to be a Republican and a conservationist/steward these days :-(.

Awesome post, liquidsquid! If it gets the thread shutdown, just know one guy here gives it a thumbs up.


It's not always easy having liberal tendencies while reconciling the need for profit,either.

I get you, Sunil. And I agree to a point. I do think the EPA needs to be mindful of its core mission, that being issues that cross state lines, but I also maintain there's room in there to assist with intra state policy, on some level, also. Groundwater aquifers do not respect state boundaries.

Link to the Executive Order:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off...sm-and-economic

What up, my Brother!!????

You guys sound like EPA - everything is connected so we can control it. Having worked in this area for 30 years I could tell you some shocking stories. Like the guy who was threatened with fines and jail because he dug a postholes for a fence in his back yard.

I don't doubt you for a minute, ewest. I also don't doubt that the more outrageous the story, the more air time it gets. Resulting in it being held up umpteen times as "proof" of how the agency can't do anything right, and needs to disbanded immediately. There are absolutely instances of abuse of power, but I'll bet for every overreach by the epa, there are far more instances where they accomplished what they were originally intended to do.

The story of the "cattle rancher" who dammed up the creek to make a "stock pond", only to stock it with fish, and build a dock, comes to mind. The guy was blatantly in the wrong, yet the media ran with his version of the story, and the public ate it up.

Makes you wonder why beavers are allowed to do that very same thing and yet the creeks flow on. Maybe hiring a couple beavers to do the job would have left that guy in the clear with the creek still flowing on it's merry way. But obviously that guy deserved being fined $75,000 per day. Only a wealthy beaver could have afforded that penalty. Ah, animals, if you're not here, you have competition.

I have to agree Sir. It seems this nation is at a crossroads where two people's exist, the Statist's and the Rugged Individualist's.

For the life of me I don't understand why the tool developed to make the two sides get along cannot be used. The Constitution has a clear roadmap on how to handle our water and environment issues. There is no EPA in this document so it is illegal to have one. There is a tool within the tool to have an EPA, it's called an Amendment. The Statist's do not have the votes for such an Amendment so the rule of law has been broken for their convenience. This Nation has continued to break the rule of law for all manner of other causes but I'll stick to the topic at hand.

Under our Constitution we have the individual State to handle EQ and if two States have a dispute we have the courts. It's really quite simple and if one side or the other wants another solution, get the votes for an Amendment and change it. This exact recipe has been followed for a number of other Amendment's but some just want what they want and they want it now so we find ways to change the meaning of law for instant gratification.

I keep reading Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution and for the life of me the EPA is not mentioned once as an enumerated power of the Federal Government. Statist's will say that the commerce clause makes it viable but Statist's seem to find NO limit to the commerce clause.

Ah well, back to my man made pond which was built on land that has NO fish in it indigenous to the actual land it was built on. Hmm any man made pond, that has fish added to it, has not one fish indigenous to the actual land that the new pond was built on. twist twist twist the law till you get what you want. I really like MI, we have as clean of water as the people who live here want. When I'm not happy about that I'll just move to another State that is up to my standard. It's so damn simple.

Dud, since we're comparing beaver activity to that of humans, do suppose it's vanity, ego, or selfishness that drives the Beaver to construct his dam under threat of a $75,000 per day fine?

The fact is the epa just got to big and overbearing. It was time to rain in their power. They got to where they could do anything they wanted and you had better have had a pot full of money if you were going to fight them in court. How much money would it cost to fight them to the Supreme Court. So, I am one who is happy about their funds being cut. Maybe now they will have to concentrate their time and money to the larger polluters. And leave the post hole diggers alone.

I'm certain there was more to the post hole story, but I agree they should concentrate their efforts elsewhere.

Good post......

Since we're all animals, given satisfaction of basic needs of air, food, water and temperature control, libido is next in line. Same for all species. Having satisfied that drive some of the beavers decide that they're much smarter than other beavers and try to tell them what they can, can't and must do with their ponds - or else. So the majority of beavers choose a big beaver named Trumpet who tells the "smarter" beavers to lump it. The "smarter" beavers don't like that at all, but, as the cows say, the point is "moooot".

I can't honestly say I'm afraid of too much, but I'm cautious of two things. Excessive money, and insufficient intelligence. I have noticed in my 50 years on this planet, that either one will often cause problems. Now, I see a disturbing trend whereby we've started combining those two attributes into one individual, one corporation, even one leadership. Fortunately, nothing is permanent.

One thing is clear. The EPA thinks it should control water from its source as raindrops to its entry into the oceans as well as everything (land) its touches or affects. It is a public vs private ownership matter. Outside of illegal dumping (covered by other laws) the issue of ownership is and was covered by common law with set principals and legal rights. EPA destroyed those laws and the rights of many with its actions on WOTUS. The constitutional principal is clear. Its called the 5th adm. to the US constitution and provides if the government wants to take away private rights it can do so for a public purpose only if it pays compensation. There is the hang up. EPA wants to take/control private rights with out paying compensation. The gov needs to be honest (you talk about power and big $). If water is important enough for the gov to control then it should raise taxes on everyone and pay the compensation due to the landowner's property that is being taken. The cost should be a shared burden on all not one taken/imposed from certain landowners. Only when people have to pay for what they get do they decided how important a matter becomes. Something tells me that people will not pay more in taxes so the EPA can tell Charlie he cant dig postholes for his fence.

Tell me ewest, how did the EPA know/come to be involved with Charlie's postholes?

Probably a neighbor.

A local conservation agent told me anytime a dozer is seen working within a quarter mile of a creek he can expect to get a call. He says there is rarely a problem, but when someone calls in with a complaint they are required to check it out. Anyone with google earth can be a self appointed environmental activist.

If you have good and reasonable locals, it probably stops there. But if it is sent higher up the chain, corps or EPA, the troubles could compound if you happen to be the unlucky one who gets over zealous agents or someone trying to work their way up the government food chain.

I suspect ewest is limited in what he can say about any individual case.

And ewest, thanks for defending the Constitution. I happen to think the people who are responsible for creating this Republic put a lot of thought into it based on all the problems they witnessed with other forms of tyranical government. It has stood the test of time, despite repeated attemps to minimze it.

And what might that statement from the CO that snrub references, tell us...possibly that more and more folks are becoming aware of the environment, and conscious of how humans interact in it. Therein lies the future, me thinks. Times are changing, setbacks happen, but the inevitable still occurs. Interesting times.

Unfortunately most governments over time do turn into tyranies. That is why historically governments do not last forever.

The framers of the constitution were very aware of this problem, considering the new country had just declared independence from one. From what I read, the original signing was questionable that it was going to happen because many did not feel it limited the federal government enough. It was signed only with the understanding that the limitation of powers would be revisited. That revisit was what amounted to the very first set of ammendments, or what we know of as the bill of rights.

They wanted the power of the federal strictly limited because they knew first hand from many historic failures of governments that government tyrany eventually leads to revolutions. That is why they specifically left most of the power to the states, where state legislators were closer and represented more closely the people that they governed.

I would agree that the world we live in today with mutlinational corporations is somewhat different. But there are plenty of laws on the books to address those problems already, even if those laws have been ignored for too long (specifically anti-trust laws among others).

Power and control of all air, water and property. Fortunately, even if temporary until congress acts, with Trumpet ans Screwitt in place, all moooooot. Even for self-recognized geniuses. Or is it genii?

A handsome young lawyer named Screwitt,
Saw the job and he knew how to do it.
Though concerned with one note,
On the air it did float,
As he picked up his trumpet and blew it:
MOOOOOOOOT!

Ya just gotta love that cowspeak. True and clear: MOOOOOOOT

Just because one person does not do, or like, what another does, in no way entitles the "offended" party to force their views onto another when it comes to private property rights. If you do not like a neighbor clearing a field, or lighting what they choose, and if their actions are legal, the offended party needs to build a wall, buy better curtains, or move, if they are so "offended". Far too many these days feel their personal rights and opinions make all other's differing rights and opinions "offensive" and illegal. There are long established laws and precedents on what constitutes trespass by one property owner that is affecting another, and I don't think simply disliking what others do is rising to the level of trespass.....there has to be a quantifiable damage done. The EPA vastly overreached, SCOTUS, Congress, and a majority of citizens agreed.

Temporary after Congress acts, also. Once the majority mindset changes, laws follow suit shortly thereafter.

Rex, it's the part about being legal I'm in agreement with you about. I would not hold my neighbors at fault just because they had different ideas than I did. But when there are existing laws that govern such different opinions, there needs to be a body that defines"
Quantifiable".

That's kind of the whole problem.

More Regulation Madness


.

Has anyone seen/read that 'letter' from a guy to the gov't where he blames beavers for damning up a creek?

A funny piece of writing there.

Picture perfect example of what I've been talking about. the majority opinion here seems to be one of "let the states handle things, not the fed government. The EPA has no business meddling in state affairs. The constitution has provision for state's rights. If you don't like your state's regs, move."

Well guess what...from reading the article, it isn't the EPA that is in conflict with this family, it is their state. And the law that is at the crux of all the hardship, was passed in 1975. These folks acknowledge owning the land since 1967, so they were surely aware of what its passage might hold for the future. Not a peep for 42 years, now they're all up in arms over the law, crying foul.

And since they received no satisfaction at the state level, what did they do? They took their case to the Supreme Court, that's what. How about that...differing levels of government, moving up the chain, letting the system work as intended.

Thanks to Tbar for posting the link.

yes and can't wait until "you know who" appoints
a bunch of "Baby Scalia's" over the next 4-8 years

I admire your optimism!

Why not?....looking at ages I see at a minimum 2 Supreme Court appointments in just the first term and possibly as many as 4 in the first term.

Name - Age
John Roberts 62
Anthony Kennedy 80 years old
Clarence Thomas 68
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 83 years old
Stephen Breyer 78 years old
Samuel Alito 66 years old
Sonia Sotomayor 62 years old
Elena Kagan 56 years old

Neil Gorsuch 49 years old - Nominated

It's not the potential for appointees that will be the problem. I believe it will be the staying power of the appointer.

I'm out for awhile, family time, and I imagine this thread is wearing on some nerves. Have a great weekend all!

Oh yeah, go fishing....it's good for you.

Talk to Jeb, Hillary, and the UniPartyGlobalist media about his staying power...who all called him "not a chance".

And Pence would undoubtedly appoint Baby Scalia's too.

Have a good weekend Sparky.

The real problem is not the office, title or who is in it. The real problem is Law that is a compromise is often flawed from the start. There is a right thing to do, but often times it is just too hard for politicians to do. We need real leadership not politicians. There are "true Believers" on all sides. Their position often only reviews the facts that benefit their argument. We spend way too much time talking and not enough time listening.

Wisdom, Fortitude, and the ability to do the right thing rarely rest at the same desk. But when it does, it is magical.

I'd love to go fishing with my family right now, but I need to go flying.

I post this before, but it's gone now:

STATE OF MICHIGAN

Reply to:
GRAND RAPIDS DISTRICT OFFICE
STATE OFFICE BUILDING 6TH FLOOR
350 OTTAWA NW
GRAND RAPIDS MI 49503-2341

JOHN ENGLER, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
HOLLISTER BUILDING, PO BOX 30473, LANSING MI 48909-7973
INTERNET: http://www.deq.state.mi us
RUSSELL J. HARDING, Director

December 17, 1997

CERTIFIED

Mr. Ryan DeVries
2088 Dagget
Pierson, MI 49339

Dear Mr. DeVries:

SUBJECT: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023-1 T11N, R10W, Sec. 20, Montcalm County

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:

Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files show that no permits have been issued.

Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301,. Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated. The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris dams and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all unauthorized activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the strewn channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 1998. Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request, or any further unauthorized activity on the site, may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter.

Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

David L. Price
District Representative
Land and Water Management Division
616-356-0269

dlp:bjc

cc: LWMD, Lansing
MontcaImCEA
Pierson Township
Lieutenant Mary C. Sherzer, DNR LED

------------------------------------------

Reply:

1/6/98

David L. Price
District Representative
Land and Water Management Division
Grand Rapids District Office
State Office Bldg., 6th Floor
350 Ottawa, N.W.
Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2341

Dear Mr. Price:

Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N, R10W, Sec 20; Montcalm County

Your certified letter dated 12/17/97 has been handed to me to respond to. You sent out a great deal of carbon copies to a lot of people, but you neglected to include their addresses. You will, therefore, have to send them a copy of my response.

First of all, Mr. Ryan DeVries is not the legal landowner and/or contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan — I am the legal owner and a couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, nor authorize their dam project, I think they would be highly offended you call their skillful use of natural building materials "debris". I would like to challenge you to attempt to emulate their dam project any dam time and/or any dam place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no dam way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.

As to your dam request the beavers first must fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity, my first dam question to you is: are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers or do you require all dam beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, please send me completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated.

My first concern is — aren't the dam beavers entitled to dam legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said dam representation — so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing dam flooding is proof we should leave the dam Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling their dam names. If you want the dam stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition — contact the dam beavers — but if you are going to arrest them (they obviously did not pay any dam attention to your dam letter — being unable to read English) — be sure you read them their dam Miranda first.

As for me, I am not going to cause more dam flooding or dam debris jams by interfering with these dam builders. If you want to hurt these dam beavers — be aware I am sending a copy of your dam letter and this response to PETA. If your dam Department seriously finds all dams of this nature inherently hazardous and truly will not permit their existence in this dam State — I seriously hope you are not selectively enforcing this dam policy — or once again both I and the Spring Pond Beavers will scream prejudice!

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their dam unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam right than I to live and enjoy Spring Pond. So, as far as I and the beavers are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more dam elevated enforcement action now. Why wait until 1/31/98? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then, and there will be no dam way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then. In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real environmental quality (health) problem; bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the dam beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!)

Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.

Sincerely,

Stephen L. Tvedten

Uhm, for those confused, this is an argument for States rights and not against them. The 5th Amendment is being used, and rightly so, since technically all the Amendments are incorporated under the 14th Amendment. The argument that some want, having a higher power to go to other than the State, is actually being satisfied here as per the Constitution. This is how the Constitution works, you follow it, you observe it, you honor it, and then you might have a Republic you can keep.

This notion that there should always be a "higher power" to go to for satisfaction is circular. Who does one go to, if you don't have a Constitution, after the Supreme Court? Does one count on the epa? If you don't like the epa do you then go to a world court? What then a Universe court? That argument makes absolutely no sense.

We have a Constitution and it is perfect in that if you don't try and bastardize it, it works. It is also perfect in that a very simple instruction manual came with it for those who want to change it. That manual doesn't have a provision for the soup of the day "I'm in the mood for the epa" law. You have to make your case, gather the votes, and get it done right. This hasn't really been done properly since prohibition and then again by removing prohibition.

For a bunch of guys 200 some odd years ago, they were pretty darn smart.

Sunil that is greatness!
Ha Ha...thanks for posting.

Sure snrub. Charlie (fictitious name to protect the innocent)owned a simple 3 bedroom house in a subdivision bordering a bayou. He wanted to build a fence across the back of his yard. Because it was near a wetland (bayou ) it had hydric soil. He dug postholes (dredge and fill material)to put up the fence. EPA told him no. You can guess the rest. Check on Section 404 permits, wetlands determination - hydric soils or dredge and fill material. Also a source is EPA abuse.

Legal history.

Our founders at risk of life made a Declaration of Independence.
the concept set the basis for our constitution.

Here is the idea - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government....

The Constitution picks up this declaration and provides a Bill of Rights that guarantees each individual with rights "unalienable rights endowed by their Creator ". As these rights are a gift from the creator these rights can not be taken away by a majority vote ,the Pres , Congress or anyone else. They are the cornerstone to freedom.

How did the EPA become involved ewest?

I think this discourse is constructive and am grateful it's remaining civil.

On another note...I love that response to the EPA letter...gets me every time. Thanks for posting again!

Seeing as we've kept it pretty simple, what you you all think about "Freedom of the Press" in this day an age?

I ask from the angle of what exactly is the 'press' these days? Most any kind of media or 'news' is from for-profit institutions, and some organizations are about as large as they can get.

Por ejemplo, CNN is owned by Time Warner.

Okay, since Sunil asked..

In my opinion, impartiality is a thing of the past. It's all about an agenda these days, and furthering that agenda takes precedence over accuracy and/or non-biased reporting. And the tendency to over dramatize and sensationalize the most mundane event is almost nauseating. A two inch snowfall is not a winter storm, people!

But what concerns me the most, is how so many people are aligning themselves and taking sides, without ever searching out the facts or attempting to uncover the whole story. I don't understand that? What you read on the net, or hear on the news, is most likely slanted to elicit a particular response. You can find anything on the internet, supporting any belief or any opinion. But c'mon people, that doesn't mean it's correct! If it sounds so outlandish and ridiculous that you
can hardly believe such a thing, and it fires you up and makes you angry, well, you've probably just allowed yourself to be manipulated by the modern media. Chances are, there's another whole side to that story that the media conveniently left out.

And if you're getting your news from a site that agrees with your particular philosophy and is frequented by folks who are of a similar mindset as yourself, you're absolutely not getting the entire picture. We need to get our news from a variety of sources, not just those who share our own ideology. Then, we can examine the thing from every angle and make up our own minds, rather than becoming a pawn on some media chessboard.

I'm pretty sure that a few minutes of searching would turn up a news source proclaiming that the earth really is flat, and that Aristotle had it all wrong. Doesn't make it correct, though.

I do think the media should be held accountable for their reporting, and be required to validate before taking it public.

As a scientist, I was trained to fight the bias that we all have, and let the evidence do the talking. Some say they are not biased, but that is the trap. We all bring bias to the table. If one really wants the truth, one needs to recognize the bias, and fight to interpret the evidence (all the valid evidence) fairly. Picking and choosing what evidence to consider is a sure sign that reason has been left behind. Science is clearly under assault in the current administration. However, much of the controversy is actually over what policies we should adopt to combat what science tells us is happening, but the policy controversy should not make some ignore the scientific facts and conclusions.

Nice post, RAH. And as if learning to recognize and account for own personal biases wasn't bad enough, I think we also need to learn to identify when those biases are being manipulated externally.

I used to flip the channel when I wanted news to get both sides. But, there was so much bias on the cable when it came to the three different channels. So, I just watch the fair and balanced one. Seams like they are the news channel most watch, and their ratings prove it to be true. I will say I am not a righty nor a lefty, kinda down the center of the road until I see a pond out the window and then I may drift a little as I look it over.

"Manipulative bias". I wonder how many recognize it? It's everywhere. Both conscious and subconscious attempts at influencing opinion.

I think many folks know that others are often selling something, even if it only their point of view. The internet is so crazy, that those that grew up with probably learn to filter things pretty well.

If I was to use the same logic as progressives use for the 2nd Amendment, I'd guess we'd have to say the 1st Amendment is outdated, right?

We are told that the founders didn't have semi auto firearms, there was no smokeless powder, they did not have magazines...

Well the founders didn't have internet, radio, TV...

Using this nonsensical form of logic, free speech should only include the newspaper and the spoken word, poppy cock!

Free speech is free speech and the right to bear arms is the right to bear arms. If the founders had wanted limitations on these rights they were plenty smart enough to have written limitations in for the times they existed in. If some of us disagree with these limitations on the Federal Government then we can gather the votes and Amend the Constitution just as it was designed to be Amended. Those votes don't exist though so people twist twist twist the meanings of words.

My concern are not just the specifics, but the concept that the Constitution is the highest law of the land and should not be bent. As indicated, there are provisions to change it if the people think it needs changing. While I do not like some laws, I recognize that a country ruled by law is still the best thing going. Unfortunately, a friend lamented that we have a legal system, not a justice system...

Post 465728 on page 3 in this thread. First complete sentence....did you catch it?

Not trying to imply anything, just observing how ingrained and entrenched, even subconsciously, the manipulation of emotion has become.

I guess that I don't things have changed much over the years in that regard.

The issue is one of Charlie digging some post holes in his yard in order to construct a fence, and the EPA becoming involved and trying to tell him he cannot do such a thing.

Of what relevance is the fact that Charlie owned a simple, three bedroom home? We don't give it a second thought, but the seed is planted: Charlie lives a modest, non extravagant lifestyle. Like many of us, he probably isn't well off. He's a little guy, being bullied by the much larger and powerful epa.

So already we are moving away from just the facts, and allowing emotion to influence our judgement. Not saying that Charlie didn't get a raw deal and treated unfairly, not at all.

Just pointing out how widespread and easily overlooked manipulation and bias can become. Even subconsciously.

I give these things a second thought. I can recount my own experience that priced me out of a pond/wetland complex on my land. The plan was to use 100 acres of tilled agricultural ground as watershed (not my fields). NRCS said it would work. My ponds and wetlands would have kept water from these fields from flowing directly into a creek considered impaired by the EPA. In my case, the county surveyor and "studies" he wanted were the impediment. Yup - I have some bias! We all want a clean environment, but IMO, the pendulum has swung too far in one direction. Now it will likely swing too far in the other direction.

Post 465728 on page 3 in this thread. First complete sentence....did you catch it?

Not trying to imply anything, just observing how ingrained and entrenched, even subconsciously, the manipulation of emotion has become.

What is this and what is your point ?

465728 is not on pg 3 which do you mean ?

I made 465728 on pg 8. The first sentences are :

Sure snrub. Charlie (fictitious name to protect the innocent)owned a simple 3 bedroom house in a subdivision bordering a bayou. He wanted to build a fence across the back of his yard. Because it was near a wetland (bayou ) it had hydric soil. He dug postholes (dredge and fill material)to put up the fence. EPA told him no. You can guess the rest.

I agree on the pendulum effect. We are a nation of extremes.

Well, for me, this thread only has 4 pages? Not sure what the difference is, ewest?

Science has benefited mankind since before the discovery of rapid oxidation, but when the scientists are on the payroll of a governing body, the validity of their conclusions should be questioned.

All science should be questioned, but not abandoned when scientists from all types of backgrounds and employment pretty much agree.

All science should be peer reviewed and unbiased. What topic is agreed upon by most all scientists ? Recall that at one point in time all the best scientists thought the world was flat.

I see my question a couple of posts above was not addresses.

One can Google the Pew survey that compares the opinions of the AAAS scientists and the public to see specifics. This thread will get shut down if we discuss them here.

This thread has already broken a few forum rules as is. I will not delete it but someone should. Now you can see why political threads should never be made.

It was. I suspect you might have been typing and missed it. Post # 465825. At this point, not sure what page that is for you.

When science gets folks mad, it is a sure sign that ideologies are involved that conflict with the science. I find this is a heads-up for me to question why this is happening and why the evidence gets me upset.

When Leonardo proposed that the earth was not the center of the universe, he was fined $75,000.00 per day by a powerful political body and exiled to the isle of Malta where he died when the island was bombed in 1945. Proof positive that science should be independent of politics, or something like that.

Separation of church and state was another way our founding fathers had fore-site. Religion drove the rejection of the sun as the center of the solar system.

Ohhhhhh...any way we can work green energy into this thread also?

I see my response to the question posed a few posts above has not been addressed.

Glad I got that in before the thread implodes.

I've certainly learned a lot from this thread, and, as a result, I'm moving over to the left to be with my like-minded colleagues and where I'll be better understood and accepted. I'll fit right in.

Look for your safe space ?

sprk you are wrong. What I posted were facts which were requested. I have answered a lot of questions over the years but never been accused of manipulation.

Persuasive writing can be called manipulation, but I consider that harsh. We all try to influence others by marshaling convincing arguments. Our choice of language is part of those arguments. Now I most certainly try to manipulate my pond to achieve my goals. I hope the fish are not distraught over this:) BTW - the use of the term "manipulation" can also be seen a manipulative itself since it has negative connotations.

Ewest its all good on my end, and I do appreciate your response. I will most likely never see the relevance of describing Charlie's house/lifestyle in regards to his battle with the epa, no more than I would discussing his hair or eye color. To me, it speaks of at attempt to elicit an emotional response, ie little, modest Charlie, vs. giant epa. I have no doubt that it was unintentional on your part, I simply see it as an ingrained, unconscious act that we all do whether we realize it or not.

You answered the question, it was your choice of adjectives describing Charlie that I find fascinating. RAH tells us that scientists are trained to recognize, and discard, (to the best of their ability) emotional response, choosing to act on factual info only. Could some be trained to recognize, and utilize, emotional response instead?

Sunil asked about the media, and I offered up my thoughts. Those being it's all manipulative and agenda driven. That was the basis for how I got here. Your post seemed to fit the bill, so I commented. No disrespect intended, again I believe it has become unconscious to all of us.

Entity (can't call them a person right? This leaves out sexual proclivity right?) "X" was doing something (don't want to say what they were doing less we describe X's lifestyle, profession, whatever) and a regulation enforcing group (don't want to say what group less we get folks ginned up at something they already find disdain for) found "X" to be in violation of code "Y". X is now in prison for P years and was forced to pay $Z dollars a day.

Good grief man reporting a story, no matter what the facts are, so long as they are true facts is all I as a consumer of said report care about. I don't need a safe space, I don't need the facts trimmed from any story in fear I could be swayed, I want to be swayed but only with the facts. Most people are just happy to read something in this day and age when we don't get all the opinion BS we seem to lately.

Shall we get to the place nyc is in now? When a bad guy gets called in (yah, I used "guy") they are not allowed to say the bad person's color just in case they prejudice someone listening on the scanner. The color of the person can sure come in hand though when you are LOOKING FOR THEM.

ewest, your report was fine, geesh.

Signed, a rugged individualist.

As someone with both an "X" and a "Y" chromosome which makes it easier to "P" on a tree, I am deeply offended:)

P.S. I also try to get a few Zee's in each night!

Back to the original post, has anyone followed this story?

http://rickwells.us/obama-epa-wotus-pond-criminal-trump-trashed-rule-release-imprisoned-vet/

There are questions to be answered and answers to be questioned.

sean

I know about it and that's the case I was actually talking about two posts above yours. I'm not sure what relevance the guy being a veteran has but I'm sure it tugs at some folks emotional heart strings. The facts are the guy is a citizen, I checked, and other than that he is from Montana, was convicted of polluting waters of USA and depredation of United States property.

It appears he did this on ACTUAL US Forest Property?!?!?!? He then extended the work on to someone else's private property ?!?!?!?!?!

Now, another side of the story.

https://www.oathkeepers.org/the-sentencing-of-joe-robertson/

It is important to note that Constitutionalists do NOT recognize the right of the Federal Government to own property outside of DC and military bases. The reason for this is that the US Constitution says it's so.

From what I have read it looks like that is not the best example of EPA over reach. Looks like maybe the guy had a screw loose.

Now the punishment fitting the crime? That looks questionable.

This conversation here is why I love PB. Some comedy mixed in with a rational discussion that hasn't ended with anyone getting singled-out in a bad way or line-by-line dissertation breakdowns of a dissenting point of view. It is what keeps me coming back here!

If you cannot laugh at yourself, you will never enjoy life.

Hey Rah, my Wife has finally given up on getting me house broken.

Sounds familiar!

I'm an uneducated dirt farmer, closer to being born in a barn than you can imagine, barely house broke, and proud of it.

Not sure why peeing outdoors is such a joy.

I do enjoy it though.

Perhaps my joy is commensurate with amount of beers taken in.....

Perhaps it's the feel of the fresh air.... gets you wondering how great life would be with a loosely fitted neoprene codpiece!!!

--we'll see if someone is reading this while moving to their new place.

I've wondered that myself Sunil. Back in college every Saturday night when I got home at 3AM just before going inside I would always pee in my front yard when obviously there was a bathroom just inside the door. It became one of those crazy rituals that makes no sense....lol.

Sunil, you're enjoying it for the sake of the EPA. It's your subconscious way of saying "go ahead, take my water".

Even those last few shaken drops .

Back in college ('87-'91), there were multiple incidents of students pissing on their keyboards late at night.

From his cold, dead _ _ _ _ LOL.

I personally appreciate indoor plumbing, especially in January.

Remember to keep this discussion and all discussion according to the rules and good behavior set forth by our PondBoss mentor for this forum. If you need a review scan this link.
http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=201090#Post201090

I think we like to have options.....

My grandsons are 3 and 4 and one of the reasons they like going to our camp (aka pond site) is to pee outside. I think it is natural in boys/men!