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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many here would do the same?


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

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

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

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

Good post.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Government, 1
Ordinary neighbor citizen, 0

And the pattern repeats.

LOL!!

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