I don't know if this topic has its own thread yet. If not, maybe we can start over again here or someone can repost this in the correct thread.

update on the EPA taking control over virtually all waterways:

EPA completes water grab

Is there a legal expert who can keep us posted on what this bill really means and what we can do?

Is this control retroactive so those of us who have ponds that used to be wetlands or where water flow in and out could now be federal property have to take some steps to protect our private resource?

Does this help---

http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=31191&Number=411395#Post411395

Canyon...as I read the new regulation, the EPA gets full control in determining what a "New" pond or farm is, regardless of ANY other federal agency determination...even courts....they could decide you walking on it makes it new

I think you need to be able to read between the lines, and understand a very large scope as to what this means.

You live on Canyon Creek Dr. in GR. I live in GH, which we both share the Grand River, Correct?

The sewage overflows from Grand Rapids, effects us over here. You flushing the toilet could mean crap floating to Lake Michigan and effecting everyone in between. Several fish farms moved over the past 15 years to better sites with really good water.

You may not realise this, but there were quite a few fish farms off the Grand River, but the waste from Grand Rapids...

Not sure how bad it is today, but the saying was, "Rains in GR, Crap today!", and that is literal!

Canyon, you have probably not been to a waste water treatment facility? My ultimate gross out point was when I had to work on a storage vessel, and all the top floating stuff was condoms and feminine pads. This is in the same water coming out of your tap

GH gets their water from Lake MI. Well's up north.

Several good points made in your post JKB.

I'm fine with more EPA regulation -IF- that solves the sewage in the drinking water problem. I know much effort has gone into preventing sewage being diverted into stormwater lines during big rain events, and the frequency of that occurring has been much less lately. I know millions of dollars have been spent in creating a separate system to handle stormwater run off and to keep those lines separate from sewer lines. Water quality has improved in the Grand River because of it. Without more strict water quality regulations the factories lining the grand river in downtown GR would probably still be discharging their pollution into the river. We have seen the river clean up and the downtown revitalize as the river became more usable for recreational boating/fishing etc. I'm sure as with anything, much more could be done to prevent all sewage from ever getting into the river.

However if the EPA is telling us that the water confined to our backyards requires state or US approved water sampling periodically, or cannot be added to or subtracted from, or permits are needed to treat unwanted weeds etc, then we might as well all turn our ponds into something else.

My toilet flushes into a septic tank so you are safe from downstream visuals on our sewage JKB. However, I'm sure the company that pumps the tanks out has lots of regulations about what they can do with the 'waste' after that.

Doesn't sewage mixed with river water just create a good 'bloom' for the fish downstream?

Human sewage never mixes well with anything.

A company not too far from here tried to make fertilizer of what came out of your butt after you ate a healthy burrito. Mildly successful at first, but it was just too gross for anyone to really get into.

They could not get rid of the stink, no matter what they tried.

A company out of Wisconsin sells people poop fertilizer that is supposed to be disinfected.

Life all starts, lives on, and ends with crap.....it's just the way it is in any ecosystem. You can't support an over abundance of people without getting an over abundance of crap....sooner or later, nature will flush the toilet when it's too full of crap....the EPA, like most governmental agencies does almost nothing useful with regulations, outside of making every aspect of life more difficult and costly. It wasn't the EPA that cleaned up the great lakes..it was an invasive zebra mussel...along with businesses finding ways to overcome regulatory costs and make a profit...

Fish farms generate fish waste, they are bad...we better kill all those fish thriving in the river off it also that create more waste...

Few corporate polluters actually MEET EPA guidelines/regulations...they simply buy credits and pay a fee to ignore them....

Zebra and Quaga are actually killing the great lakes. I know that some of the Salmon have been introduced to take care of another invasive, the Alewives, but the mussels are reportedly to cover the entire bottom of the lakes at this time, and the baitfish are getting thin due to lack of food, therefore impacts the larger fish.

Not a darn thing you can do about this.

But think about all that crystal clear, mussel filtered water that will be able to be piped to California! I kid, I kid.

Too bad the water is so cold....be a good opportunity to try and grow some monster RES to compete with those at Havasu!

Maybe a new, world record Pumpkinseed is on the horizon....

IDK, the reports I have read show struggling species now thriving and the only "damage" from zebra mussel being utility installation related. Many a fish species bellies full of Zebras, lower pollutant concentrations in sediments and water column. I guess the "killing" is all in the eye of the beholder.

I'd also say the reports of the "entire bottom of the lakes being covered" is GROSSLY exaggerated...there just isn't enough food to grow THAT much, of anything. Nature/species has always thrived and declined all through it's existence...before man was here, and it will after/if we aren't. That is not saying anyone should indiscriminately pollute or there should be no regulation at all. It is saying many regulations cause more problems than they can ever correct.

Like the old saying goes...Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The EPA is seeking near absolute power, and has already tried to declare judicial restraints do not apply to the agency after the most recent Supreme Court rebuke of regulatory misapplications...that should scare most any reasonable person badly!

Of course clean water is good.

I just don't want to go through the dam (ha! Pun) federal government to build my lake in 10 years. That sounds like a nightmare!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually Spark, that has been suggested, and discussed.

What is slowly coming to light is that Walleye are taking advantage of the situation.

However if the EPA is telling us that the water confined to our backyards requires state or US approved water sampling periodically, or cannot be added to or subtracted from, or permits are needed to treat unwanted weeds etc, then we might as well all turn our ponds into something else.

That is exactly what they have in mind.

Rules now in effect subject to challenge or de-funding.

I wonder what permit that would require.....?

canyoncreek this is just more control freak incrementalism from DC.

The final Clean Water Rule was announced today by EPA and will be effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. RISE Grassroots is currently reviewing it and so far, have not noted any substantial changes from the April 2014 proposed rule which was shot down. The Clean Water Rule significantly expands the definition of "waters of the U.S." under Clean Water Act jurisdiction and we believe will still have a negative impact on public health and safety due to increased permitting requirements and costs for important pesticide applications.

I got this in an e-mail today and it sounds like the EPA is trying to do an end around. "New and improved" regs that are no different than 2 months ago.

Probably a Lawyer/Lobbyist, patience, and deep pockets.

My personal feeling, is not to worry too much about it. I think it's easy to envision the worst, most dreadful outcome and get all wound up over it, but in my experience I seldom see that worst case scenario take place.

I won't be draining my ponds just yet.

FYI

May 28th: EPA Finalizes Proposed 'Waters of the US' Rule
EPA writes off rural America and finalizes proposed 'Waters of the US' Rule

“Nothing left unregulated” is the apparent motto of the Environmental Protection Agency. Today, the Agency finalized its “Waters of the United States” proposed rule, which unilaterally strips private property rights and adds hundreds of thousands of stream miles and acres of land to federal jurisdiction.

Under the guise of clarifying the Clean Water Act, the EPA and the Army Corps added ambiguous language to the law that leaves regulation up to the subjectivity of individual regulators across the country. By law, the EPA must read and consider all comments submitted on the proposed rule, but only six months after receiving over one million public comments on the proposal, EPA has finalized the rule. Philip Ellis, National Cattlemen's Beef Association president, said this is a clear indication there is no intention of considering the concerns of those most impacted by the rule.

It shouldn’t be a surprise, however, that a flawed rule would come from a flawed process. Not only did the EPA write the proposal expanding the reach of the Clean Water Act without input from agriculture, the Agency implemented their own grassroots lobbying campaign to drown out the concerns of private property owners. The tax-payer funded campaign was promoted through social media channels and called for people to share EPA’s oversimplified and misleading talking points.

“The former Obama campaign officials that received political appointments at EPA are apparently putting their activist knowledge base to use,” said Ellis. “Soliciting endorsements and support is a far cry from simply educating the public, as EPA officials claim.”

The Agency even went a step further during a press conference when Administrator McCarthy called the concerns of cattlemen “ludicrous”. This doesn’t sound like an Agency interested in rural America at all. It’s an Agency with an agenda.

In fact, the EPA used maps of waters and wetlands throughout the country that detailed the extent of their proposal, but it wasn’t until the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology was doing research in preparation for a hearing that the maps were discovered. The taxpayer funded maps, presumably kept hidden for years, painted an “astonishing picture” of what EPA intended to regulate, as Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) explained.

“The EPA has been spending taxpayer dollars employing a grassroots lobbying campaign, hiding information, dismissing concerns from stakeholders, and holding closed-door meetings with environmental activists,” said Brenda Richards, Idaho rancher and Public Lands Council president. “There is no question that this rule will infringe on private property rights and usurp state authority over land and water use. Ambiguous language included will only serve to further jam courtrooms across the country with jurisdictional challenges.”

While NCBA and PLC are reviewing the details of the final rule, the entire process has been flawed and must be set aside; the final rule poses an unnecessary threat to private property owners and cattle producers across the country. The only fix is to start over with all stakeholders’ input and direction from Congress.

National Cattlemen's Beef Association

I went to the article linked by canyoncreek in the very first post in this thread, and a couple statements stood out.

Quote:

“We’re finalizing a clean water rule to protect the streams and the wetlands that one in three Americans rely on for drinking water. And we’re doing that without creating any new permitting requirements and maintaining all previous exemptions and exclusions,” EPA head Gina McCarthy told reporters Wednesday."

and:

“This rule is about clarification, and in fact, we’re adding exclusions for features like artificial lakes and ponds, water-filled depressions from constructions and grass swales,” she said

I didn't have time to read the whole proposal last night - not enough time in the day as it's 297 pages long.

But, in the first 30 pages, what I saw was alarming to me. I can think of 2 people right off the bat who'd be affected by this proposal. Dwight and Fireishot.

Some snippets:

To provide that protection, the Supreme Court has consistently agreed that the geographic scope of the CWA reaches beyond waters that are navigable in fact. Peer-reviewed science and practical experience demonstrate that upstream waters, including headwaters and wetlands, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream waters by playing a crucial role in controlling sediment, filtering pollutants, reducing flooding, providing habitat for fish and other aquatic wildlife, and many other vital chemical, physical, and biological processes.

For instance, I believe FIH's pond is considered to be the headwaters of the Lake Fork River. Wouldn’t this affect his pond?
Part of the CWA is to further define what is to be considered “Waters of the United States”.

““Adjacent waters” include wetlands, ponds, lakes, oxbows, impoundments, and similar water features.”
“Waters located in whole or in part in the 100-year floodplain and that are within 1,500 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a traditional navigable water, interstate water, the territorial seas, an impoundment, or a tributary, as defined in the rule (“floodplain waters”).”

I believe this would affect Dwights pond.

I think there's another provision in there that says any water that is within 4,000 feet of any 100 yr. floodplain.

Here they are leaving the door open so (in my mind) ANY BOW could be considered part of the CWA.
“The agencies recognize that there are individual waters outside of the “neighboring” boundaries stated above where the science may demonstrate through a case-specific analysis that there exists a significant nexus to a downstream traditional navigable water, interstate water, or the territorial seas. However, these waters are not determined jurisdictional by rule and will be evaluated through a case-specific analysis.”

Could a pothole in the Midwestern prairie be considered a pond? Could a pond be considered a pothole? “In this final rule, the agencies have identified by rule, five specific types of waters in specific regions that science demonstrates should be subject to a significant nexus analysis and are considered similarly situated by rule because they function alike and are sufficiently close to function together in affecting downstream waters. These five types of waters are Prairie potholes, Carolina and Delmarva bays, pocosins, western vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie wetlands.”

That's only from the first 30 pages. What's in the remaining 267 pages???????

What I read, it seems that the CWA is more about the EPA writing about justifying the rule than the body of the rule itself. The body is buried among all the mumbo jumbo, and then they reference other regulations that you have to look up to understand what they are talking about.

I was under the impression that the EPA was told to go re-write it. I think they are flipping us all the bird and going ahead with it in it's original form anyway.

I may be wrong, but from my understanding, the steps that the EPA took will make the CWA legal in 60 days. If we don't get off our arses and write and call our congressmen and senators and create a big stink we will be stuck with it and all it's nuances.

esshup, thank you for your posting here. I have and will again contact our representatives in Washington, but My first thoughts here are the same that I posted awhile back, when I said at what point do you take up arms against a government? George Washington and Paul Revere come to mind when I think of such things. I am by a peaceful man, but I ask myself, would a takeover of my pond push me to far? Would this be any different from the two men I mentioned above? I am not suggesting that one should take up arms today over what would be considered an overreaching EPA or government arm, but at some point a man should stand his ground, or Draw a line in the Sand. So I will ask you if the EPA took or attempted to take control of your pond, what would you do? And if you stood ground, would there be any here among us that would stand with you? I wonder to myself where I might stand. Would I be all talk and no action? To be honest, I am not sure, but I think the taking of my pond might be the line in the sand.

Tracy

I'm thinking there may be a pretty long stretch of road between proposal, acceptance, and implementation.

And at risk of aligning myself with the "other" side, it seems to me we have had very similar conversations here on the forum in the past. I remember stating that I will never use a well to fill my ponds, as that clean drinking water I'm pumping doesn't just belong to me. The aquifer doesn't stop at my property lines.

I also recall it getting pretty quiet when I asked why we shouldn't be held responsible for our fish escaping out overflows and entering public water. If I remember correctly, It even went so far as to be suggested to me that public discussion on this matter might not be in our best interest?

http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=266647

PondBoss is a community of folks who are extremely passionate about their ponds, their land, and their way of life. I get that, and I think I'm of a similar mindset. But how is it okay for us to get up in arms over the possibility of a neighbor doing something to negatively impact our own property, but fall silent over the possibility of something... fish, chemical, whatever, coming out of our own ponds and lakes and affecting someone else down the line?

I think the overwhelming majority of those here are good stewards of the environment, and care enough to take pains to try and treat others as they would like to be treated themselves. But from living where I do, I am also assured that many feel and act otherwise. I don't want someone telling me what I can and can't do with my own ponds, but in my opinion there needs to be an accountability somewhere along the line, for those who are unwilling to govern themselves accordingly.

The question becomes "when are enough regulations enough?"

As regulations become more and more onerous, do we just continually increase regulations to the point there no longer is any "private property"?

Not a year goes by that the federal register does not increase by many thousands of pages. When do we get to the point there are so many laws we all are breaking the law daily simply because of so many laws and regulations there is no way to know what the law is?

We may be there already.

I am all over private property. I believe a property owner has rights, and should be allowed to use his or her land as they see fit, so long as it doesn't impact me, or my property in any fashion.

That's the way we do things here on our own property, and I expect the same from my neighbors. If my neighbor decides he would rather burn his trash than take it to an approved dumping facility, go for it. Just make sure that smoke doesn't come onto my property and force me to close my windows. I have the right to enjoy fresh air, after all.

If he decides to turn his stereo up loud enough to vibrate the siding on his house every night, more power to him. I like my music loud also. However, our musical tastes are not the same, so kindly install some type of soundproof noise barrier between his home and mine.....my windows are open, remember? And I'm not a big country music fan.

If he decides junkyard ownership is in his immediate future, fine. Just be sure and build a privacy fence around the whole establishment. I don't want my property values plummeting because of his actions. And while he's at it, be sure those vehicles don't leak fluids into the ground water. We do share that aquifer.

And if I have a pond, I will take every precaution in order to try and mitigate that BOW's presence on everything in it's potential pathway. I will be mindful of the fish, and the chemicals I introduce into it. That's just how I was raised, and how I believe.

That same neighbor would think nothing of calling the landlord when he or she lived in town, and the tenants above his/her apartment raised such a ruckus the ceiling began to shed drywall....so how is this scenario any different?

I propose that we wouldn't need so much governmental intervention if everyone simply respected everyone else's property rights as much as they value their own. But sadly, that day and age has long since passed.

Sparkie, you make a some good points in your response to my comments here. In response, I would say, I am a good steward of the land but I try to watch over the government as well. If "We the people" do not have an unlimited amount of money to fight the battles in court (that might be caused by an over active arm or individual in the government), then It might be necessary to bring attention through the media by whatever means in stopping an over barring and over reaching government. I believe this is an attempt by the EPA to Nationalize the water. And that would include the Rain.

Tracy

Tracy, I think watching and questioning the government is both prudent and necessary. I'm just not convinced however, that behind every single action lies an ulterior, dark motive.

Which is odd, because I'm usually the paranoid one. Am I assured that they are coming for my water? No, not at this time. Am I confident that they are keeping the truth about alien activities on this planet secret from the public? Damn straight!

sparkie, thanks for the smile that just crossed my face roger that on the aliens.

Tracy

Sparkie, I'd have to agree that most regulations, even laws creating new agencies, start with good intentions. Yet, I can not think of one single regulation, agency, or overpaid bureaucrat that did not need to expand it's role and intrusion into areas never intended to justify bloating a budget more and more annually. Can you imagine an honest employee telling congress..."we're just not really needed, there is no problem here"...? As it is now, they get fired for reporting misconduct....it's about the ONLY way to get fired as a government employee I've seen lately.

In this case, the EPA was created to help clean up some specified areas of contamination and the Clean Water Act was to clean/regulate specified stretches of NAVIGABLE water ways, yet almost immediately, it expanded it's jurisdiction and created regulations that made any agent's field order, unable to even be appealable in civil court, till just last year.

I can't see ANY good coming from a regulation that gives an agency sole decision power without oversight from any other governmental entity.

I could not possibly disagree more. There is no right to your property value being held up by your neighbors appearance. You do not have a right to quiet. You may not even have a right to the occasional smoke coming from your neighbors trash fire (some courts have ruled with you and some against you).

If these things were true, you would not have a right to mow your lawn (mower too loud) , have wood heating or maybe even certain aromatic flowers on your lawn (smoke too smelly flowers too stinky), paint your home to the color you like (your neighbor may claim it decreases their home value). These types of expectations of "rights" are EXACTLY why we have an out of control government. There are actually people so weak that they expect the right to these things and more.

Now, should your neighbor be polite and take kindly to the Golden Rule? Heck yes they should! I just haven't found the person yet where I've had to go running like some sissy to my local government and make some new law (nor would I). Direct infringements, not the indirect infringements of noise and such, are really pretty rare and I've not known or even heard of many who do such things.

On another note, where in Article I Section VIII of the US Constitution does the federal government have the power to even regulate these things? They do not and this power to regulate items not listed is left specifically to the States and to the people. The weak minded among us will try to make water flow up hill once more with the inter-state commerce clause. When there isn't a way to for the infringers among us to get federal regulation they simply throw their dreams in with the interstate commerce clause.

I think you make pretty good sense here. I will simply state that it is entirely up to the States to make these sorts of laws and NOT the federal government. When such laws are made locally, they are typically better law. The law is typically better tailored to the area being affected. What's more important is that the federal government has absolutely no power to make such laws and is infringing on States rights when it does.

States were meant to be the laboratories of freedom in this nation. If a State got so stupid as to make a bunch of stupid laws, the people could go to a better State. When the federal government gets involved though, we have nowhere to move to.

Now, if Michigan and Indiana are disputing which one gets to suck Lake Michigan dry for some new water project, by all means, get the feds involved.

As I value this thread and would hate to see it disappear entirely, I will only state that I am glad we all have a chance to voice our opinions. I feel there is some good, pond relevant info in this thread, and I will not be the cause of its removal. Time will tell.

This has been a well thought out thread as far as personal views go so far....hopefully it stays that way.

I agree, people should be "neighborly" and consider how their /our actions affect others. Sadly, so many now rely on "some law" to enforce nearly every aspect, it gets very invasive, even detrimental. There is a theory that because of all the Federal regulations now, every adult American arguably commits 3 Federal felonies on an average day. Still have an old incandescent bulb in your home, you committed a Federal violation...each day is a "new" violation. Ever run a car a few days without a muffler or other exhaust malfunction, Service engine light on? More EPA violations! Have you used ANY aerosol spray for something not exactly as described in the instructions? You guessed it...says right on the can, "It is a violation of federal Law to use this other than instructed". Drop some oil on the ground after an oil change? Not report it immediately to the EPA? What about an old prescription in your medicine cabinet?? Is it still even legal to possess? Dow you know how to LEGALLY dispose of it?More "crimes"!!! What about that leaking oil pan on a car or mower....yup...EPA makes it all criminal when it touches the ground! Have asphalt shingles on your roof? This new EPA reg can make you replace your roof, and/or fine you $75,000 a day now for leaching petroleum products into the groundwaters.....simply by some field agent driving by and giving you a cease/desist/remediation letter...

Sparky is right about having a "reasonable" expectation to peace and quiet, but maybe not on a neighbor collecting what he may see as trash...if the area is zoned, he has that expectation, if not, each neighbor/landowner has the right to do any legal activity they wish. Most places consider "quiet time" to be between the hours of 9pm and 7am. Am I violating someone's right to quiet if I target practice with my 30.06 at 2pm, no..at 2am...you bet!

To sorta plagiarize a quote from Penn Jillete, When I was an uneducated 12 years old, I could be sitting on my couch at home and know whether or not I was violating any law or regulation...now, a short 42 years later, I am well educated and even though I do research, I often have no idea how MANY laws or regulations I am in violation of at any given moment.

I don't know if this is accurate or applicable, but this is pretty much how I see it.

Private Nuisance

A private nuisance is an interference with a person's enjoyment and use of his land. The law recognizes that landowners, or those in rightful possession of land, have the right to the unimpaired condition of the property and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its occupation.

Examples of private nuisances abound. Nuisances that interfere with the physical condition of the land include vibration or blasting that damages a house; destruction of crops; raising of a water table; or the pollution of soil, a stream, or an underground water supply. Examples of nuisances interfering with the comfort, convenience, or health of an occupant are foul odors, noxious gases, smoke, dust, loud noises, excessive light, or high temperatures. Moreover, a nuisance may also disturb an occupant's mental tranquility, such as a neighbor who keeps a vicious dog, even though an injury is only threatened and has not actually occurred.

An attractive nuisance is a danger likely to lure children onto a person's land. For example, an individual who has a pool on his property has a legal obligation to take reasonable precautions, such as erecting a fence, to prevent foreseeable injury to children.

Trespass is sometimes confused with nuisance, but the two are distinct. A trespass action protects against an invasion of one's right to exclusive possession of land. If a landowner drops a tree across her neighbor's boundary line she has committed a trespass; if her dog barks all night keeping the neighbor awake, she may be liable for nuisance.

Full text here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Right+to+quiet+enjoyment


I have personal experience with the "excessive light" condition mentioned in the paragraph. Only time in my life I needed to enlist the services of an attorney, after all other diplomatic avenues had failed.

sprkplug....do you envision this new EPA water rule could ever result in some enviro-whacko inside the EPA demanding we not stock certain predators or not allow a pond owner to use rotenone to kill a pond because the EPA has some precious little snail-darter or some other endangered cock-roach they want protected?

Could? Sure it's possible. It's also possible that I could be arrested somewhere in Indiana for:

Taking a bath between the months of October and March.
Eating watermelon in the park.
Driving on Main street with my lights on.
Throwing a stone at a bird for any reason other than self-defense.

It's my understanding that all of these are laws,(rules) still on the books in various Hoosier locales. I'm just not one of those guys who automatically equates "could", with "will"....I think there's a difference between the two, and they are not automatically going to be one and the same.

I'm not ready to freak out and jettison everything over proposed, maybe, could happen, worst-case scenarios. As far as I know, the saying goes something along the lines of "Hope for the best, but plan for the worst".

The version I'm familiar with doesn't say anything about abandoning hope and committing to the worst?

Spark, I agree with the premise of what you are saying, yet in an unzoned county, as most of rural America is, the only way to enforce a nuisance or non human trespass, is to file suit in court. How can one person's view of "enjoying" their land be unimpaired and not worthy protection of another? SOMEONE will feel their rights are being violated. As what you posted says in it's opening "A private nuisance is an interference with a person's enjoyment and use of his land. The law recognizes that landowners, or those in rightful possession of land, have the right to the unimpaired condition of the property and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its occupation."....That is all land owners, not just those feeling "offended". That is also exactly why law enforcement has no place deciding such things and civil courts are tasked after a petition is filed. Maybe you don't like seeing a neighbors car collection and consider it junk, while that neighbor can't stand the site or smell of your sugar shack...Who here is "offended" or has had "rights" violated?? In a city or area with zoning, there is a much more clear definition of what constitutes a nuisance. There are also code enforcement officers tasked with the fair compliance.

Good, reasonable people, SHOULD, talk to each other and work out mutually agreeable solutions. But in this entitled age where somehow not being offended has somehow become a Constitutional right, NO person can actually enjoy the rights mentioned above.

If you remember, I was involved in a 5 year legal battle over access to my land. the person blocking me was a resident of the area, we were not. Long story short, we were legally, illegally locked out of our property we'd built up over a 10 year period. The Missouri Constitution guarantees ingress and egress to land owned for "full enjoyment", yet our judge denied it, an appeals court upheld the decision, then sealed the case so it could no longer be appealed further....We were damaged over $350,000, rights clearly violated, but we still lost. IF this EPA rule somehow stands, within a year or two, you will not believe the control you are going to lose to "enjoy" your property rights.

You mentioned "wait and see"....I doubt we'd have to wait very long to see if this rule stands...

Spark, I do know exactly what you meant earlier to about all of us should be good stewards of our lands and aware of how we affect others, whether it be a pollutant or nuisance. I know you are a good dude and deeply believe in what is right and protecting what God gave us to live on.

BEFORE the EPA, most people did that. The EPA was originally created to stop the indiscriminant pollution from huge factories, refineries, etc. It specifically exempted farms and private lands. Most polluters the EPA was created to stop, complied before being forced, yet the EPA has continued to expand it's jurisdiction FAR beyond it's original boundaries, and often when taken to court, illegally.

The current EPA director recently said those exemptions have never changed...That, is simply a total, complete lie. The vast majority of violations now are against small farms and "exempt" parties

Well I am ready to freak out because those control freaks in Washington and elsewhere in gvt want to control everything! Like Dr. Savage says it's a mental disorder....the constant need to control people. Their message is clear: politicians and bureaucrats know more about how to live your life, manage your health, and raise your kids than you do. The paternalistic social engineers who have appointed themselves the guardians of the public good. They want to control what kind of light bulbs we can buy, control our light switches, control how our clothes washing machine functions, control our thermostats, control how much water we use when we shower, control our toilets, control how our toilet paper rolls are made, control our snack vending machines, record our private cell phone conversations, control our cars, control vitamins, control our children's school lunches, and on and on and on and on and on and on.....

Yes, every society needs laws....but we don’t need millions of them!

Spark, the first 2 maybes could get you busted for attracting vermin...nuisance violations...the third is a Federal Felony violating USF&W regulations

As for the last part, maybe you missed it...the EPA rule was made an Executive order this week...it's now Federal regulation by decree, once again the congress was bypassed...There is no more maybe, what if, or it might happen...it's here!!! And the EPA had prepared plans to take swift action with their new authority.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/politics/obama-epa-water-rule/

Rex, it's not the regulation itself I was referring to as a worst case scenario. It's the IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT of same. That's where the stumbling block will come into play.

I think it's a matter of logistics. Who is going to do all of the legwork, on all of the hundreds of thousands of private ponds in the country? On-site visitations, testing, follow up visits?

I no longer worry about the future of my land, or my ponds. I have learned that I cannot fight my children's, or grandchildren's battles for them. It's a romantic notion that suggests I need to leave everything to them just as I found it, and an even more romantic ideal to think they desire it to be this way in the first place. They may be seeing dollar signs and housing developments, not ponds and maple trees.

This is my time, to do as I think best. And I think that by the time all the scuffling over this ruling has began to die down, it will be election time. Then there will be further delays while the new administration beat their drums and make speeches. Then there will be the need to fill the thousands of positions that will be needed if there is to be any hope of enforcing these new regs. All the while, there will be challenges, and lawsuits, and revisions, and stays of action. I've seen how fast my government works...I'm not worried in the least.

I look at it like I do HBG. People get all upset and concerned over trying to prevent reproduction...that's pointless. There's nothing you can do to control that. You should be focused on controlling the implementation....recruitment. Just one guy's opinion.

Normally I would agree with you, Tony. But given the way this was done, the current administration, and OUR natural, law abiding tendencies, all the EPA needs to do is create the orders, and most of us will begin to comply. We will self-enforce and annoyed neighbors will gladly report others. Huge numbers of "boots on the ground" are not needed. The powers that be EXPECT the new lemming mentality of our nation to ensure compliance.

Current administration, Rex.

Tony,

Thank you so much for having the fortitude to post what you did. I fully agree with your assessment.

This is a thread that could easily and quickly turn toxic.

There are way too many who drink the Kool-Aid of the far extremes of both sides, so they can scare and embarrass many others in an effort to try and move them to their way of thinking.

I would hope that all here would think hard about both sides of these issues.

I've watched this situation for a long time, going back to my childhood in the 1950s-60s. I hope that somehow the extremes on both sides can come to some kind of reasonable long-term consensus.

I would ask the same of the Pond Boss community.

Ken

I hear you Rex. A few further thoughts on the matter.

From the previously listed link:


Substantial Interference The law is not intended to remedy trifles or redress petty annoyances. To establish liability under a nuisance theory, interference with the plaintiff's interest must be substantial. Determining substantial interference in cases where the physical condition of the property is affected will often be fairly straightforward. More challenging are those cases predicated on personal inconvenience, discomfort, or annoyance. To determine whether an interference is substantial, courts apply the standard of an ordinary member of the community with normal sensitivity and temperament. A plaintiff cannot, by putting his or her land to an unusually sensitive use, make a nuisance out of the defendant's conduct that would otherwise be relatively harmless.

"Apply the standard of an ordinary member of the community with normal sensitivity and temperament." As I read this, it's not a case of one person's rights vs. another person's rights, but a reasonable interpretation of what might be considered acceptable by most of the community.

Here are honest examples of how I feel, and tend to look at things. This past Saturday, I took the day off from the shop. One of the things I wanted to accomplish was to use the tractor to grade the driveway that goes back to our other piece of property, and the ponds. There are 4 other houses that share this drive, with our property being the very last one on the lane.

Well, it seems that the first house on the lane, one of our neighbors, was having an outdoor get-together. It was Memorial weekend after all. I could've went ahead with my plans and stirred up clouds of dust, made noise, and generally made a mess of things, and been legal doing so. But it wouldn't have been the right thing to do.

My shop sits on the same piece of property as my current home. We're zoned light commercial. Most of the adjoining properties are zoned agricultural, but are actually residential. I know this, and I maintain a strict cut-off of business hours at 5 pm weekdays. My neighbors deserve to come home and not be bothered by roaring engines and grinding metal half the night. I do not work on Sundays, or Saturday afternoons for the same reason. Even during the spring, when I'm three weeks behind.

I begin my day at sunup, delivering and picking up equipment. Unless the piece is just too large, I push them onto the truck or trailer rather than start an engine at that early hour. Don't have to, just choose to. Out of respect for my neighbors.

This is the same sort of courtesy I appreciate being extended towards me.

Yes.

This editorial probably sums up best what is coming in the next year or so, before the "current administration" is out of office. I don't think it is a political statement to say what the current President and those he has appointed to develop policy seek full control over private lands....it is the stated goal.

Full editorial and analysis here as well as the author's bio...

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-arti...ter-regulations

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed new regulations that would give the agency control over more privately owned land than ever before. EPA issued the regulations despite the Supreme Court ruling twice in recent years that federal environmental officials had too expansively defined its Clean Water Act powers.

EPA Ignores Supreme Court Rebukes
EPA claims the Supreme Court’s decisions in SWANCC v. U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers (2001) and Rapanos v. United States (2006) created confusion regarding its newly proposed regulations. In SWANCC, the Court ruled federal environmental officials could not use what was known as the “migratory bird rule” to assert jurisdiction over isolated bodies of water. In Rapanos, the Court ruled federal environmental officials could not prohibit a private landowner from filling sand in an isolated wetland. In both cases, the Court emphasized the need for federal environmental officials to show the body of water at issue meets the Clean Water Act’s definition of “navigable waterway” that triggers federal jurisdiction.

In its newly proposed regulations, EPA claims dry streambeds that only occasionally fill with water qualify as navigable waterways under the Clean Water Act. EPA also expands its definition of what qualifies as navigable. Further, EPA claims small ponds and water holes can qualify as navigable waterways even if they are not navigable and are not physically connected to navigable waters. Instead, EPA claims federal environmental officials can view multiple such small bodies of water in combination, even if they are not physically connected.

Property rights advocates point out the EPA’s proposed rule would allow it to regulate far more bodies of water than it tried to regulate before being rebuked by successive Supreme Court decisions. They also wonder how EPA can in good faith “clarify” the Supreme Court decisions rebuking federal government overreach by treating the decisions as EPA victories and invitations to expand EPA’s powers to an unprecedented extent.

Farm Groups Voice Opposition
“As a result [of EPA’s proposal], permit requirements that apply to navigable waters would also apply to ditches, small ponds, and even depressions in fields and pastures that are only wet when there is heavy rain,” the American Farm Bureau Federation noted in the Gilroy Dispatch. “If landowners could not get permits to do things like build fences and use pesticides to control bugs and weeds—something that would be far from guaranteed—farming and ranching would be much more costly and difficult. Other landowners, too, would face roadblocks to things they want to do, such as build a house or plant trees. American Farm Bureau and California Farm Bureau are both calling on Congress to prevent this expansion.”

“Congress, not federal agencies, writes the laws of the land,” said American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman in a press statement. “When Congress wrote the Clean Water Act, it clearly intended for the law to apply to navigable waters. Is a small ditch navigable? Is a stock pond navigable? We really don’t think so, and Farm Bureau members are going to be sending that message.”

“This, in my career of farming, is the most scary and frightening proposition that I have witnessed,” Iowa Farm Bureau Federation president Craig Hill told the Des Moines Register.

Congress Limited EPA’s Reach
“When Congress wrote the Clean Water Act, Congress limited the Act’s application to ‘navigable waters’ for good reasons,” said Jay Lehr, science director for the Heartland Institute, which publishes Environment & Climate News. “Among the reasons, Congress did not want EPA bullying farmers over small depressions in their land that occasionally hold rainwater, bullying people who dig a ditch to help drain their land, and using the smallest of streams and micro-bodies of water to restrict property use. EPA is attempting to stand the Clean Water Act on its head as it continues to seek more money and power.”

“EPA says farmers should take the agency at its word that it will not enforce these regulations in a heavy-handed manner. In light of EPA’s longstanding record of heavy-handedness, arrogance, and abuse, however, farmers know better,” said Lehr.

“Private individuals would never attempt to misapply the statute so blatantly, because there are tremendous expenses involved with fighting hopeless legal cases. EPA, however, relies on its bottomless pockets full of taxpayers’ money to bully landowners and force them alone to bear the financial burdens of challenging EPA,” Lehr explained.

This is a classic example of the government trying to take more control over things in a round about way. People need to get their heads out of the sand over this and many other things. I don't want to turn this into a political debate so that's all I'll say. It's my land, and if I'm not hurting anyone else I should be able to do exactly what I want to do with it and on it. Period.

I remember having a very similar conversation on another forum, when it's members were convinced that the powers that be were going to be kicking down front doors in search of firearms. Curiously, even after a couple three years have passed not a single one of those guys has needed to visit a hardware store to buy new door hinges.

I'm standing pat on wait and see.

Right there with you Zep.....more and more and more laws. There is always a "good reason" for more government over reach and regulation.

And if you're not hurting anyone else, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It's the definition of hurting that wrinkles the bedspread.

We certainly each have our opinions, and strong feelings about the matter. I think it's good that we can listen to each other's viewpoints, without letting our emotions get the better of us. I DO think this is an important subject for discussion, and have stated this in the past. Was it TJ who advocated for discussion on the matter also?

In my opinion it does affect all of us, even if not in the manner we envision. This thread only solidifies that. I think we NEED to have discussions like these, where opinions can be explored without hostility.

Tony, you are in a "zoned" area. Only a relatively small fraction of the contiguous USA is zoned and a 10 million dollar mansion can sit next to a tar paper shack with 50 old rusting washing machines stacked on the front porch and not one thing can be construed a violation or nuisance.

As I said earlier, I know you're a good dude. I would not have disturbed a neighbor's gathering either...That is simply how we were raised, with respect for others.

My point on the nuisance thing is not about common courtesies. It is about EPA zealots and ideologues that have admittedly lied and fabricated "science" to support their personal goals and are now creating regulations WE will have to live by. Are they who you would consider, "good people", interested in what is right or fair? Would or do you trust them to not take advantage of the power to alter every aspect of your life when they state that is what is needed to attain their goal? Those last 2 questions are rhetorical for readers to ponder and decide.

When the BLM tried evicting the Rancher in Nevada over grazing fee's it may or may not have been owed, before any court decided the matter, then sent in Federal agents that aimed automatic weapons at women and children legally protesting the action, that action caused a deep anger in many landowners. Anger to the point of fighting back, however needed. Similar, recent (within the past year) Federal land grabs by claiming a false jurisdiction in Texas and Oklahoma nearly caused the same.

To think the EPA, which has now empowered itself to define it's own powers, in direct defiance to the recent US Supreme Court rebukes will now suddenly NOT grab all it can from landowners, is to me, either very optimistic, naïve, or downright foolish. What check or balance is there left to stop the EPA from anything when it is openly defying US Supreme Court rulings against it?

Ditto Rainman.

Some of the bureaucracies have become governments within themselves. They defend their power base. Rules and new laws passed that they like they not only implement but implement with gusto and their own extreme interpretation. Rules or laws they don't like they drag their feet on implementation and make excuses why they can not comply till another election cycle and they get what they want.

I've met a top EPA official in their office in Washington D.C. They smile and tell you what you want to hear, then go about their agenda even if it means they directly lied to you. I would not trust them as far as I could throw one of them.

They are a government agency run amok in the extreme. The phone book just for the EPA in D.C.is inches thick.

Rex, what do you envision them grabbing from landowners, and how will it be profitable for them? Nothing happens without a dollar sign being attached somewhere, so what's the payoff, and how will it benefit the EPA?

Yes, over the last decade my county has begun to take strides with zoning. And it was about time. However, just like the laws and proposals we are discussing this evening, I feel there would be no need for zoning if everyone simply respected each other's rights.

But they don't. So there has to be some teeth added to the mix, somewhere. If there weren't laws to this effect, what recourse would we have after polite conversation went nowhere?

G'night, fellas.

Tony, it is not about money in this case for those creating the rules, it is the power and control, yet the $$$ are literally enough to run modest size countries on. The fines are $37,500 a day, criminal, and $37,500 per day, civil. There are countless instances courts have found "violators" innocent of EPA violations in the criminal courts, yet the EPA, KNOWING it was wrong, still pursues you in civil court. Now, you can spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire an attorney, or you can pay a smaller, 5-6 figure settlement. Power hungry people with agendas do not care about money, they care about their personal goals and being "wrong" is NOT something they will either admit or accept. The threat alone of a $75,000/day fine causes most to run scared and not defend themselves...it is a hopeless cause unless you have billions to spend....the government has no dollar limit, nor any incentive to do what we do naturally, the right thing.

As to what they will grab? All your personal control to do as you wish on your own land. A whole NEW set of rules are going to start flowing out of the EPA, similar to Wildlife Codes, restrictive...meaning unless it is specifically legal as to action and method, it will be illegal.

One has to look no further than the annual, automatic budget increases in every sector of government. Governments collect money from us, they are not a business bound by any constraints they limit us with.

Can you name a single regulation that has saved you money in your business or personal life?

Maybe the EPA will try to enforce the "new rule" in E. Texas. How in the world will they get any law enforcement to support them? Maybe they should re-focus their efforts to reduce the urbanization of rural land and the concrete that goes with it. Concrete is a major contributor to the flooding here in DFW lately. No dirt to soak up the water.

Here is the $$$ motive involved, (and okay, it won't fund a modest country)...2012 was the latest info I could find. The EPA targets "violators" that have the deep pockets to pay for projects they can not get appropriations for through congress.

Of Particular note was Durham Bus company, fined 90,000 in penalties and $348,000 in "projects" for idling diesel bus engines too long. An EPA field agent "noticed" engines idling for up to 2 hours!!! My guess, since it was in Connecticut, it was the dead of winter also. Heaven forbid a diesel engine be warmed up so it can function with children on board...not to mention keep those kids warm.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-levied-record-252-million-fines-2012

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-levi...-bus-contractor

As I read this, I think everyone makes good, valid points, and virtually all are right.

This question goes to everyone: How would problems be solved when they arise?... My point is, you can't rely on people/business doing the right thing and treating neighbors correctly, AND THEN AT THE SAME TIME, you can't rely on a big agency to make blanket laws/regulations in some far away place that don't know the details of each case/problem....

I think that the most telling thing is that folks like us, that want to improve the environment, are so opposed to the expanded jurisdiction. I have already put most of my land into programs where I traded a property tax break for the right to develop the land (its in wildlife habitat). We added 2 ponds, 5 wetlands, and tens of thousands of trees to this property before putting it into the program. The chunks that I have not put in the program are those where we have buildings and operate a small vegetable farm (profits fund the wildlife habitat restoration). In addition, I have kept land out where I hope to add more wetlands and ponds. I was told that I could easily get permits for these later, but my experience tells me it will be time consuming and costly if its in a government program. I think the philosophical divide is between those that want the government to take care of them and those that primarily want the government to leave them alone. We are losing this battle.

Yes - I think you nailed it there.
But the all knowing government has learned to open proposals for public comment and then spend our tax dollars to get media firms to generate comments favorable to their views. Thats the new way thru social media to control the results.
Make you feel defeated when your tax dollars are being used against your own beliefs isn't it.

Right there...in my opinion that's where the money will come from should this thing ever get any traction. Not from Tony, and his five ponds in Indiana. There are hundreds of thousands of small, private ponds across the country, and no current means to investigate them all, determine whether or not they are in compliance, and/or do followup visits to ensure compliance.

Bigger, highly visible concerns? Possibly. Backyard pond? I just don't see it. Could they put together a system, given enough time and resources? Probably. But by the time they get done in court, get the funding sorted out, stretch it out through numerous administrations, hire and train all the manpower, and hit the ground and eventually find my five ponds, If I'm even still around I will be of an age that it won't matter anyway.

Rex, I respect your opinion. I know you are convinced that dark days lie ahead, but can you tell me how this is going to go down? It's been my experience that in situations like this some folks are absolutely positive that danger is coming, yet when pressed for details they can't supply any. Is it a gut feeling, or do you know their game plan?

I know that some will operate on feeling, or belief, or faith, and I will honor their wish to do so. But I'm just not much on faith these days, preferring hard facts instead. Something tangible, something seen, felt, heard. Show me the money, as they say. Follow the money.

I both appreciate, and admire the strength of your convictions, Rex. I appreciate the courtesy you have extended to me during this discussion, and hope you feel that I have reciprocated in kind. Hope we can meet up, someday.

Least we forget........

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

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/...s-own-property/

Gary talked about his legal issues at the Pond Boss Conference in 2012 or 2013. It was scary what was happening to him.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oregon-man-sentenced-30-days-jail-collecting-rainwater-his-property

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/gary-harrington-oregon-water-rainwater_n_1784378.html

And that's why it's not a good idea to dam up a creek on a navigable waterway, AND fill in a section of said creek with silt and debris. That's NEVER a good idea, irregardless of whether it's your land.

Giant red flag that says "come hither and see", when your downstream neighbor's water supply goes awry.

More to this story, methinks.

All we have to do is look at history.......

Can we list historical government over reach/broken promises/abuse of power that resulted from "well meaning laws"......I'll start and y'all add on.

From little things like we won't use your social security number for identification purposes, check that....its a convenient way to keep track of you to the Patriot Act - We won't be spying on Americans, well aside from keeping track of all your phone records.

I may be dating myself, but my social security card says right on it "Not to be used for identification purposes". Yeah, right...........

Would that be printed on parchment or papyrus?

I think thats the issue - under the new proposal [ which is now considered law ] all places that puddled water in the last 100 years are considered "navigable water" .
That in definition could include the pothole in your drive way. Sounds unreasonable but it happens when you give one branch of the government the power to be the interpreter, enforcer and judge of the outcome. And with unlimited resources.

The latter.

This also gets to the issue of exactly who has jurisdiction. The Constitution went to great lengths to limit the power of the federal government and put the power in the hands of the individual states. The state governments being closer to the people being governed. EPA and other federal agencies are attempts to put power in the hands of the federal government, taking said power away from the states, which the framers of the constitution were very afraid of happening because the revolution came about for the very reason of releasing the colonies from burdensome rule.

Notice the guy had permits from the state agencies? They had already evaluated his plan and said it was ok. This is a real problem when people attempt to do the right thing, go through what they believe are the correct channels to get the proper authority to do the right thing, have the papers in hand that say they are doing the right thing, then a federal agency comes in after the fact with threats of fines exceeding what any ordinary person could possibly pay and imprisonment beyond any reasonable amount for what the perceived "crime" would justify. It is nothing but heavy handed "thug" tactics. Thug tactics to scare people into submission. Guilty until proven innocent.

Yet the same government allows rich bankers to commit fraud (admitted to in court)and allows them to pay fines which are paid by the banks shareholders (our pension funds). Different agency, but same federal government.

It is nothing but heavy handed government for the aristocrats against the people. Definitely not by the people, for the people.

The original intent, definition and LIMITATION congress gave the EPA on a navigable waterway, was a river or stream that was used for COMMERCIAL transport of goods. Nothing was said about recreational use, nor feeder streams, nor DRY land within ANY distance of a river/stream. The EPA created those definitions and expanded it's reach. The US Supreme Court has TWICE in the last 2 years said the EPA had extended it's "jurisdiction" beyond the powers it was given, and the EPA continues to ignore that.

If I have Water Rights on my land, I have the power to stop flow of any water on my property, regardless of what is down stream...same as someone up stream of me has that right. If a creek flows, building a pond/small lake would only temporarily stop flow. A normal person would not stop flow if wanting a pond/lake, but could easily reduce it to allow water downstream AND fill a pond/lake.

You have a pond, spark, you altered the "natural" flow of water to any and all downstream of you. By your theory, anyone downstream could sue and make you restore the "natural" flow. Obviously, no one has, but now, the EPA may simply decide from a Google Earth photo that your pond is some violation and order you to restore the land...and, the EPA will dictate to you exactly what they consider restoration to be. You'd either comply, at whatever cost, or be fined $75K a day, from the day they tell you to remove the pond. It happens often!

Tony, I also respect your point of view on it. We have and continue to see it differently. I don't know what more "proof" you'd need over what is happening with the EPA right now. The "dark days" are not coming soon, buddy, they started a couple years ago when the EPA decided to begin expanding it's jurisdiction blatantly onto areas it has no authority, even after courts said so. The EPA, in this latest rule, has stated that it has sole jurisdiction over it's reach, what constitutes a "navigable" waterway, what a "farm" is (farms were exempt),,,all regardless of ANY other federal agency or entity definition. Read the rule, my friend. Like the ACA, it was passed, now you'll find out what's in it!

There is also no need to hire or train people. Those people are already there. the programming is already in use that uses satellite imagery to compare and locate all surface water. Some desk jockey looks at a picture and mails you a violation notice. That is how they already operate and have been for some years now. The funding is there, and minimal. There is no court or congressional review...The President bypassed that with his pen. The courts have TWICE ALREADY said the EPA does not have the authority to do what it is doing, so please don't say the courts can stop them....it hasn't!

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

Edmund Burke

Rex said: "Some desk jockey looks at a picture and mails you a violation notice."

Environmental groups have volunteers that scan satellite pictures for potential violations, then turn them in to EPA. Then EPA sends the notice.

EPA does not even need to hire any more people. They have people do it for free.

Tony, I think it was in your first post on this thread where you said something like..."at the risk of being seen on the other side"....You're not on the other side! You state your beliefs based on your experiences and do so eloquently....with thought and intelligence! I absolutely respect your opinions and even share most of them. We've not engaged in a whizzing match, and won't. We have also not been insulting or attacked any ideas, thoughts or beliefs...merely stated those things, and tried to back them up as best we can.

Your beliefs are not wrong in any way! What my experience with government has shown is that those directing enforcement in agencies like the EPA, COUNT on beliefs like you have. Beliefs that there is nothing you can do as an individual, that if you try not rocking the boat, you'll stay off their radar, that it will take years before they work their way down to little guys like us...Maybe I am wrong in seeing that as your view on this rule...if so, I apologize.

The EPA sees deep pockets like we would see a large client. We give them "special" attention because they pay our monthly bills and we rely on them. But also like a business, those "little guys", the one time customer, THEY make us money to live better on...they allow us to go on vacation, buy our kids something nicer, to upgrade or landscape our ponds.

WE, the LITTLE guy are who the EPA is coming after. Your do not hear about it in the news, because we do not have the resources to fight the goliath of the EPA. the money is NOT in the few hundred deep pocket violators every year....the "money" is in those hundreds of thousand of little ponds they can charge any amount they want...because they HAVE to pay. Besides, as a business, you do not pay a fine or tax, you collect it from your customer to pay. We, the little guy, pay for Durham, Exxon, Shell, BP and any other deep pocket the EPA goes after in higher prices at every level of a supply chain...THEN, the EPA grabs us directly too.

Maybe we personally will not get targeted right away...does that mean it is your neighbors problem when some thief you stealing from them, something you feel they have enough of, and therefore feel no concern or need to report or stop that thief?

The biggest misconception in ideals or belief I have seen is again, something folks in charge at the EPA and other agencies count on...Belief that the rule of law matters, that due process MUST be followed, or, that there even has to be an ACTUAL violation. The EPA has proven, repeatedly, those things do NOT apply to them! The EPA was ordered to stop claiming jurisdiction beyond it's authority, it instead EXPANDED it's authority in direct violation of the US Supreme Court, and nothing stopped them. Now, that over reach has been made an Executive order. The EPA has leadership, back by the enforcing branch of government, that can, will, and IS doing whatever it wants with impunity.

Tony, I truly hope you are right! I have no doubt whatsoever that you try doing everything in your personal and professional life with integrity and thought to how it affects others. But, as a small engine repair shop that works daily with "pollutants" that fall under EPA jurisdiction, plus the new powers they have over your 5 small ponds, along with the belief that you are not someone they'd care about....that makes you a gold mine of opportunity to take every dime and piece of property you have. WE, are easy pickens for the EPA, and they never give us a second thought after they hammer us.

And Snrub guess who is one of the top (if not the top) largest single entity polluter in the entire world? The US Federal Government! The Washington "know-it-alls" need to look in the mirror before they ride in on their high horse sniffing around our private property ponds!

http://ivn.us/2012/04/18/the-number-one-worst-polluter-on-earth-is-the-u-s-federal-government/

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/25/us-department-defence-one-worlds-biggest-polluters-259456.html

http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/20...worst-polluter/

Rex, you absolutely nailed this part. What was that old line from the TV series? A wise man walks with his head bowed? I subscribe to this philosophy heart and soul.

Everything negative that has been mentioned concerning the new and more powerful EPA could come to pass. I do believe that. But, I also believe in playing the odds. And by my reckoning the odds are in my favor....by a wide margin.

You can build the biggest, meanest, highest horsepower engine possible, but it won't do you any good if there's no tires on the car. This goes back to the HBG example I used earlier. The EPA will continue to make new laws, just like my HBG will continue to reproduce, Drafting a new law isn't the actual problem, just like HBG reproducing isn't the problem....it's dealing with the aftermath that defines our skillset.

With my HBG, I know what to expect and have taken steps to curb any potential issues. In the case of the EPA however, we don't yet KNOW what will happen. I realize many think they know, but in reality, none of us have the answer. All we have is "this is what happened *****", and "back in ***** they did this to ****". And even then, it's always the same few cases over and over. In no way shape or form is this proof of what will happen now. Evidence for possible future action, okay. A sure thing? No way.

As I see it, the unfortunate, uncomfortable truth of the matter is that someone, somewhere, will need to be the guinea pig for this new mandate, PROVIDED this thing ever reaches that state. I'm certainly not convinced that it will, but for the sake of discussion let's assume the worst.

Chances are, very good chance actually, that the poor guinea pig will not be me...I know that's harsh, but it's the truth. Some unfortunate soul's pond will be the proving ground, and from that we will finally be able to gather some idea of what may lie in store, and be able to formulate a response. Until that happens, IF it ever happens, we're guessing and speculating, nothing more.

And I see nothing wrong with that, in fact speculation can be a prudent course of action in and of itself. But I think we should acknowledge the notion that it is in fact, just speculation. Like I said last night, time will tell.

Well I can say one thing for certain, In my lifetime I have never seen the government
get any smaller or less intrusive. And thats almost three quarter of a century.

FWIW here's an approach....If my little puddle ever comes under their gun, I might try to approach things maybe a little differently. I would try to choke them in their own redtape instead of fighting their right to rule. I would hire a smart attorney to petition the court to stay all penalties until the EPA provides proof of a violation. I would have him challenge ever tiny bit, make them provide detailed credentials of the analyst that identified the violation, technical data proving the satelite data is accurate, credentials of the people assessing the accuracy of the the satelite data, banking and audit information of all EPA personnel involved to verify they were not bribed to cause me a problem, EPA family ties to any of the people downstream will require detailed family trees of all involved (how far is downstream?), etc. etc. etc. Keep all the requests for info as ambiguous as possible (sound familar). You get the idea. A huge amount of trite info. They will never be organized or have the manpower enough to comply and provide the info required in the time the judge allows. If they are, well then, what are the credentials of the people that did the family trees, how accurate is that info, etc. etc. etc. Case will never go to court.

Now let's say all the paperwork, motions, etc that causes the headaches for the EPA is published free on the internet for others to use should they come under the gun...

In some Circuit Courts, it's the intern that writes the ruling and the Judge just rubber stamps it as good enough, because he's going fishing and don't want to be bothered

FINnFUR, since a great deal of what we are using to try and illustrate our varying viewpoints has to do with past dealings of big government, I wonder if I might ask for your insight?

Over your lifetime, can you think of an instance(s) where the government proposed sweeping changes, only to encounter stiff opposition? Specifically do you recall the mood on the streets, as it were, regarding those changes? Was there talk of going too far, assurances from folks that this was the end all move, promises that if such legislation passed the country would never recover, and widespread damage would result?

And what was the outcome? How did things play out? Did the future, as foretold by these people actually come to pass?

The mood on the street was pretty mild concerning government policies with banks and making loans to those who had no hope of paying them back, right up until the recent economic crash...

Good luck. They get paid the same while you get charged by the hour.

How about the mood on the street when Roosevelt proposed the Social Security Act? Ruination due to increased taxation? And yet, here we remain.

Or the Great Society Programs enacted by Johnson? Anarchy? Apparently not.

Prohibition....wait, that was repealed. The government actually reversed course, changed their mind. It can happen.

The federal ban on assault weapons in the mid 90's. I remember this one....folks were sure...absolutely sure...that this was the first step towards the govt. coming to their home and seizing all of their firearms. No one came for mine. No boots through the front door.

This is absolutely not intended to be a political turning of this thread. Just a couple examples to try and illustrate how public perception, and fear of new legislation is not always warranted. By the same token, there are also instances where such concern was justified. The point, as I see it, is simply that we don't know. None of us know.

As far as where I stand, I'm probably not so far removed from the majority here. I absolutely believe that the EPA would like control of my water. I also believe that the day will probably come, when they achieve it. But in my opinion, I don't need to begin buying up and hoarding Cutrine just yet.

My point is not that we should panic, but rather that we should not put our heads in the sand. If you do not object within the political process, then you will get what those that do act prescribe. The American Farm Bureau is one place to start.

Reading some peoples posts makes me believe there isn't a regulation they couldn't support. That pushing more and more regulation on their fellow man is ok but to have a different opinion is heresy.

Where exactly is Freedom Indiana....???

Tbar...or ah don't worry about the control freaks stealing our freedoms because they can never enforce it against everybody. Did our founding Fathers say..let 'em steal our freedom and just hope for the best? Heard the same thing about our stolen privacy laws..ah let them listen and record all our cell phone calls without a warrant because they can't listen to everybody's calls.

Freedom lies in the south central portion of the state, nearer the western edge than the middle, neatly divided by US highway 231/67. There's not much to see here, but you'll know you've arrived by the flashing yellow caution light that hangs over the junction of 67 and Arney rd. The sole traffic light, by the way.

You probably won't be impressed with Freedom. No gas stations, banks, convenience marts. We are proud of our automated crossing gate that operates on the railroad track however. It's the only one in the entire county. And, if your eyesight is sharp you may catch a fleeting glimpse of the small sign along the highway declaring Freedom was the home of Babe Pierce....the original Tarzan.

We also have a genuine US postal office. For the time being, anyway. It's days are numbered in a community this small, and we all know it. Probably ought to stop in and look it over during your visit, before it disappears. You might catch Mrs Abrell in there picking up her mail, and strike up a conversation. Course she will be polite, but probably cock her head at you a bit.....you talk funny, and that means you aren't from around here. Ask her how long her family has been settled in this area. Ask her also how the John Deere is running....I service it for her. Have for years.

If she's especially talkative, ask her about Freedom area resident Sammy Davis. Indiana's only living Medal of Honor recipient. You might know him from the movie Forrest Gump. It was his body that Tom Hanks face was superimposed over, during the presentation scene in the movie. The scene itself was real.

If you really want to get a feel for the big city however, you need to continue further down 67 for another 7-8 miles. You'll reach Spencer, the county seat. Population approx. 2400, and home to three of what I think are only five stop lights in the entire county. Be sure and check out the courthouse, with its copper dome. Pause a moment in quiet reflection, at the Doughboy statue on the courthouse lawn. Did I mention that Spencer was the hometown of noted artist, E.M. Viquesney, creator of the statues?

Now for the good part. We'll leave this city atmosphere behind and go for a drive out in the country. There's some folks I'd like you to meet. We're going to take your truck however, as what passes for a county road is enough to make a vehicle's suspension break out into a cold sweat...but I'm sure you won't mind as I know you're curious about sampling the full flavor of where I call home. One more thing, and I've mentioned this here before, when we stop somewhere you stay in the truck and let me do the talking. The folks we'll be paying a visit too out here don't take kindly to outsiders, whether they be governmental in nature, or just an unknown face. They're good people, just wary. They're used to doing things their way, without intervention from anyone. Sound familiar?

After I've broken the ice and made the introductions, you can ask them about the EPA, and government policies, and how they feel their lives will be impacted. Don't be upset when they laugh in your face however. They don't mean it personally, but they're far more concerned about getting the firewood cut, coming up with the money for a couple new tires, and hoping it doesn't rain until they get the garden in...they're counting on that produce to help make it through the winter. For many pond owning residents of Freedom, there are far more pressing concerns than rumors of apocalyptic scenarios, and veiled suspicions. Many here are simply trying to survive.

And on that note, I'm going fishing to try for some BG filets for supper. Not out of fear that I need to get them now while I still can, but just for the simple enjoyment.

I agree.

Freedom sounds like a nice place to live. Freedom is a great concept too... I'm sure you saw the irony I was trying to subtlety point out.

I wonder how Mrs Abrell and other fine folks of Freedom and Spencer would take the news that their ponds and bar ditches were going to be regulated by the goberment. Perhaps the ponds their fathers and grandfathers built decades ago had to come down immediately because they are out of compliance with the new mandated standards.

I don't think these fine true blue American folks with multi-generational ties to the land would just laugh it off........

Since you are so vested in this idea I suggest you volenteer to go to each property in the area and do an inspection. This sure would save the tax payers some money having to hire someone who doesn't know the area......they would just get lost. Besides, you know folks in the area and I'm sure you can make them understand.

Cheers.......I just caught 10 BC and am going in for dinner.

If there were reason to approach my friends and neighbors, I would gladly volunteer. But since I am feeling confident that there will be no local repercussions whatsoever regarding the new EPA mandate, I will refrain from bothering them. Rabble-rousing is frowned upon here.

Nice going on the crappies, I'm sure they will make for a delicious dinner. The bluegills we prepared for supper were outstanding.

The prohibition act? The assault rifle ban? Seriously??

Let's look beyond the original apathy that allowed one of these things passed, and look at what got the latter modified to a delay on only foreign imports of military surplus being banned.

The first, after the apathetic thought that "they" won't really enforce it made "average" people realize just how wrong they were; then the "thug style" enforcement caused the deaths of ten's of thousands of people, private citizen and LEO's, an explosion of organized crime, and especially politicians being killed caused the repeal. It was NOT some sort of epiphany that made politicians realize they'd made a mistake, it was the common person being persecuted and fighting back that caused it.

It was the immediate explosion of assault rifle sales and hording of ammunition (which continues) that made/makes politicians and policy makers realize the same thing would happen if the ban wanted by the anti-gun zealots were to get passed, and enforced.

Any of us can choose the apathetic view of, Oh, it won't effect me", and as long as it doesn't, we can pat ourselves on the back thinking we were right. And if one day someone comes to your door, or you receive that certified letter saying your property is now off limits because of an environmental violation, we can be thankful you didn't rock the boat and only lost our property, and never had to waste a moments thought on preventing it.

Heck, I think I'll drop all my insurance policies that are federally mandated, my business licenses that are required, the 20 or so state permits I need to do business... while I'm at it, I should stop paying my taxes also...I'm too little for them to look at.....

As for social security? 18 TRILLION in debt?

The great society, anarchy? Happened to have noticed riots in Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD?? What about the cops being executed in NYC and other places, or attacked in rural MS.....Police are now more worried of being prosecuted for doing a good job when making arrests and enforcing laws than they are for not doing anything when crimes are committed...Yes Sir, all is fine in this "Great Society" of Regulation Nation and entitlements.....just as long as it happens to someone else....

Since we're on the topic of government agencies, I personally wouldn't mind nationalizing motor vehicle registration and safety inspection. A national license plate and inspection sticker would make it much easier for truckers crossing state lines. Transient workers wouldn't have to re-register their vehicle after moving to another state, and I wouldn't be so danged paranoid crossing the state line while returning home after shopping at "Starbuds" in Colorado.

Chillax and enjoy your pond, fellows. I know I am. ............. Our government has a whole lot bigger fish to fry than the ones in your pond.

Yep!

yeah like "if your like your doctor you can keep your doctor"!

gullywasher, "Starbuds" haha lol, I wished they would open those places here. The tree farmers here would cut all the pines down, and grow the stuff in E Texas in the acidic soils where only pine trees grow Heck, I might be able to grow the weed along with the other weeds that grow on my place It might even make my property a better income and with the weed growing I might worry less about the government taking my pond from me and not paying me the thousands of dollars I spent. I might get all that money back, and just say the hell with it. But in the meantime, it is kinda of like telling them "they will take my guns from my dying hand", kinda of the same feeling I have about my pond.

Tracy

I thought of this thread when I cracked open my fortune cookie at lunch and it read "Optimists believe we live in the best of worlds and pessimists fear this is true".

Personally, I guess I'm not seeing much value to this thread so far. It's good to discuss matters. I wish there was a little more meat to the matter. Things like what is the truth behind what the EPA is currently trying to pass, etc.... and what to do about it if you agree or disagree. How do people get apathetic? For one thing, I think it comes about when they hear and see too much, yet nothing is achieved. I wonder how many people have stopped looking at this topic. All this effort could be spent in coming up with a letter to(who ?) and placed in a convenient spot for the forum to print/send to a representative(where/who?). Make it easy for those who want to participate, and those who don't, that's up to them.

I don't think this discussion can be resolved, nor should it be that simple. We all have different beliefs, and that's what America is about. I do feel that people need to have some relief in helping them solve problems when bigger pockets(be it gov't or a wealthier neighbor) create a problem, but the answer should not be allowed to be a blanket statement/law if it's at the cost to even one person.

I've been following this thread and just can't stay out of it any longer. Regardless of whether the EPA intends to come after our ponds or not, we have a HUGE problem with an out-of-control government. The EPA was told twice by the Supreme court that they didn't have the authority. Congress has at least once and I believe twice passed legislation prohibiting this power grab. Yet, an executive order is issued telling the EPA that they can do this. How is this in any way constitutional? The problem is that the Supreme court can rule all they want but the rulings have to be enforced by the executive branch and our inept Congress refuses to defund the government agencies that are out of control.

There is an old saying, "I love my country but fear my government."

GOP subpoenas Obama regulatory officials on water rule

By Timothy Cama - 07/14/15

House Republicans moved Tuesday to force the Obama administration to disclose certain documents related to the development of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) major water jurisdiction rule.

The House Oversight Committee sent a subpoena on the rule to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which is responsible for reviewing all major federal regulations before they are issued.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) alleged in his subpoena that OIRA and its chief, Howard Shelanski, are illegally withholding from Congress documents that lawmakers have requested since a March hearing.

The EPA made the highly controversial rule final in May, asserting federal control for pollution purposes over minor waterways like wetlands and streams. Republicans charge that it gives the EPA power over the vast majority of land in the United States.

“The proposed regulation is highly controversial and Congress has a right to know how it was developed,” Chaffetz wrote in the subpoena, along with Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the panel’s government operations subcommittee.

“The documents and communications that the committee requested will advance our understanding of the review process and the factors that OIRA considered during that process,” they said.

At a March hearing, Meadows pressed Shelanski to disclose all communications between the agency and the EPA on the rule. But Shelanski declined to hand over staff-level communications within his agency, saying that they are part of a “deliberative process” and Congress is not entitled to that information.

Meadows and Chaffetz have since repeatedly asked for that information, and Shelanski and his staff have refused, the committee said.

On the Senate side of Capitol Hill Tuesday, lawmakers sought other information from the Obama administration on the water rule.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, asked the EPA to send the committee its legal justification for the regulation.

“I have been waiting for over four months for a legal justification of EPA’s redefinition of ‘waters of the United States,' ” Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), who chairs the subpanel with water oversight and signed onto Inhofe’s letter, said in a statement.

“Having reviewed the final rule, the reason for the delay is apparent — the final rule cannot be justified,” he said.

The House has passed a bill to overturn the water rule, and the Senate is working on a bill to for the EPA to go back to the drawing board on it.

Separately, more than two dozen states and numerous business groups have filed lawsuits challenging the rule.

Source: "The Hill"

No surprise with this.

All part of the reason I am not concerned over the rule. Nothing moves that fast in government. There are roadblocks and speedbumps, construction zones and potholes, lane closures and slower traffic, at absolutely every turn. Always something.

I'll worry when and if government begins to work together seamlessly. But not before.

Unfortunately that results in many causalities among common people !

Sometimes congress gumming up the works is a good thing!

I'm not overly concerned about this either even though I've personally seen my share of government oversight in the aquaculture industry. A lot of misinformation and the sky is falling mentality out there. And of course it's in the best interest of the media to make things look as negative and as bad as possible because that sells.

I even saw where someone was blaming the EPA for the wolf introduction out west in Yellowstone. The EPA had nothing to do with it. It was done by the Department of Interior upon request by local biologists due to the fact that the cervidae were overgrazing the park.

Wolves in Yellowstone system would not be a problem except they can't be effectively managed due to ESA listing.

They are building the S IN leg of I69 around Bloomington. Everywhere along the work zone, they have put up signs "Waters of the US" at every little ravine and holler. Guessing it was a requirement of federal funding. Don't know what the signs actually accomplish, but they are irritating.... can't imagine if that's your property next to the sign. Now why they also put up "Karst formation" signs, I have no idea- but those strike me as just silly.

Traffic through that I-69 construction area is almost indescribable at times.

What those signs accomplish, in my opinion anyway, is provide a job for someone on the taxpayers dimes. I highly doubt it goes any deeper than that.

Karst formation? Sure, anyone who lives around here knows that. You're right, that does appear kinda' silly?

That makes perfect sense Eric but the introduction still wasn't initiated by the EPA which was my point.

Or am I wrong?

Isn't a karst formation directly tied into the groundwater of the area? Maybe was done to make it clear that contamination had to be guarded against?

They are very watchful when it comes to Karst formations. Drop into a cave and discover those endangered, blind cave fish (see how I worked that angle into a pond forum? ) and you're done.


Whitish pink, fusiform shape, blind......now there's some forage!!