Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Who will own our ponds if the EPA gets its way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time will tell.

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

A great question RAH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





EDIT: Deleted rant to try staying more on topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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