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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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



Thought provoking and entertaining!

See conclusions

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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