|
Forums36
Topics40,961
Posts557,957
Members18,500
| |
Most Online3,612
Jan 10th, 2023
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 997 Likes: 57
|
OP
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 997 Likes: 57 |
Submit and comply to your over bearing/over reaching/over regulating big government or you will be buried. Wyoming man challenges outrageous EPA fines...... A rancher is taking the Environmental Protection Agency to federal court, asking a judge to stop the agency from fining him more than $16 million because he built a small pond on his property. Andy Johnson of Fort Bridger, Wyoming says he made sure to get the proper permits from his state government before building the pond. After all, this is America in the 21st century, and nothing done on your own property — certainly when it involves the use of water — is beyond government concern. Johnson is facing millions in fines from the federal government after the EPA determined his small pond — technically a “stock pond” to provide better access to water for animals on his ranch — is somehow violating the federal Clean Water Act. “We went through all the hoops that the state of Wyoming required, and I’m proud of what we built,” Johnson said. “The EPA ignored all that.” In a compliance order, the EPA told Johnson he had to return his property — under federal oversight — to conditions before the stock pond was built. When he refused to comply, the EPA tagged Johnson with a fines of $37,000 per day. Dismantling the pond within the 30-day window the EPA originally gave him was “physically impossible,” Johnson said. That was in 2012. Today, Johnson owes the federal government more than $16 million, and the amount is growing as he tries to fight back. In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court on Thursday, lawyers representing Johnson argue the EPA overstepped its authority by fining the rancher. “Threatening me with ruinous fines even though I’ve done nothing wrong is extortionate,” he said in a statement provided by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit law firm representing Johnson. “This is a battle about more than my land, my livestock and my pond. The EPA is on a mission to expand its power. They want to take over jurisdiction over private property throughout the United States.” The EPA did not return a request for comment on the lawsuit. The fine issued to Johnson is stunning on its own, but other aspects of the EPA’s behavior are difficult to understand. For one, they’ve not yet explained how Johnson’s small pond is a violation of the Clean Water Act — only that it is. Surprisingly, that’s not all that uncommon, said Johnathan Wood, a staff attorney at PLF who spoke to Watchdog about the case. RELATED: Mine owner says EPA has record of toxic dumping that goes back to 2005 In many cases, the details of the EPA’s consent orders aren’t revealed unless someone files a lawsuit challenging them, he said. But the EPA’s action against Johnson is even more difficult to understand because Congress has specifically exempted stock ponds — like the one Johnson built, intended to provide water for animals — from regulations under the Clean Water Act.......... Read The Rest Here[sarcasm on]"Don't worry about the new EPA over reach that occured in 37 States today, they won't affect you."[/sarcasm off]  Let the Over Regulating/Big Government apologist begin their defense.......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14
Ambassador Lunker
|
|
Ambassador Lunker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14 |
No need to defend, it's written into the rest of the article quoted above. " In a statement provided to AgFax.com, an agricultural journal, in March 2014, the EPA acknowledged the exemption for stock ponds but said that didn’t matter in this case. Johnson’s pond exists within the “stream channel of Six Mile Creek,” a small waterway that eventually feeds into the Green River in western Wyoming, the EPA says.
“The issue is whether Mr. Johnson qualified for the stock pond exemption. To qualify for this exemption, the pond must actually be used in farming or ranching operations, and it is only exempt to the size the farmer requires it to meet operational needs,” the EPA statement said, according to AgFax. “Ponds created for aesthetic or other non-farming-related purposes do not qualify for the exemption.”
Essentially, the federal government gets to decide how much water you need for your ranch.
The case could take months, or even years, to work its way through the federal court system.
As it does, the fines will continue piling up.
Here’s the biggest kicker: Johnson and PLF’s attorneys say the creation of the pond actually improved the environment.
It created a wetland, where previously there was only a small creek. The pond not only provides a habitat for Johnson’s own animals but also a habitat for eagles, moose and other wildlife. Water exiting the pond is actually cleaner than the water flowing into it, according to tests by an independent environmental lab and included as part of the lawsuit.
Johnson says he’s been trying to explain this to the EPA for more than a year — supplying it with reports on the environmental benefits of the pond and getting state officials to confirm his pond complies with their permits.
Even Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead is behind him. In a statement, Mead called the EPA’s fines “heavy-handed.”
Sounds like he built his pond in a creek channel. A named, creek channel. And his ranch, appears to be 8 acres. The EPA is arguing that he built his pond by damming a creek...a big red flag no-no. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/...s-own-property/I may not agree with the penalties involved, but I do understand the reasoning behind them, based on what I'm reading. That information comes from several different sources, not just those with a definitive slant one direction or the other.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 207
|
|
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 207 |
I had heard about this case when it happened. I hunt mule deer in Wyoming at a particular ranch almost every year. The ranch owner has a well to water the livestock and the epa only allows so many gallons of water for the herd. The rancher has complained about almost the very issue in this article you mention, congress had exempted livestock. The epa told this rancher exactly what they told the one above, too bad.
In the case of the rancher I mention, they use all the water they are allowed every day and have to let the excess go into tanks for the days when it's hotter and the cattle need more water. How many head you may ask? They only have 140 head on 35,000 acres! I don't understand for the life of me how this can be true. I have never heard of a rancher in Michigan ever having this issue.
I just got a new pond, I made it twice because I aint so bright.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,358 Likes: 4
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,358 Likes: 4 |
Did he dam a named creek without a Corps permit?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 997 Likes: 57
|
|
OP
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 997 Likes: 57 |
I may not agree with the penalties involved, but I do understand the reasoning behind them, based on what I'm reading. That information comes from several different sources, not just those with a definitive slant one direction or the other. NOBODY is surprised you agree with this......!!! ROTFLMAO!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14
Ambassador Lunker
|
|
Ambassador Lunker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14 |
Did he dam a named creek without a Corps permit? Apparently, yes he did. Several pages long, but here it is. Sorry, may need to cut and paste the link. Hope it works. http://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/rhc/epaadmin.nsf/filings/6c6ec0f783d2b53985257c7c00214564/$file/cwa%2008%202014%200012%20ao.pdf
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 67
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 67 |
Google Map of the farm:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/686+Co+Rd+260,+Fort+Bridger,+WY+82933/@41.2518498,-110.4212087,344m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x8751abfe61b4b7c9:0x65a275628fb26fcd
He dammed up a creek, stocked it with trout, built a dock for the kids and never responded to EPA's letters. Hard to feel sorry for the guy.
Here is the EPA Letter of Violation
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/rhc/epaadmin.nsf/filings/6c6ec0f783d2b53985257c7c00214564/$file/cwa%2008%202014%200012%20ao.pdf
EDIT: Sparky, you beat me by a couple minutes.
Last edited by mudhole; 08/28/15 01:21 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14
Ambassador Lunker
|
|
Ambassador Lunker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979 Likes: 14 |
Sorry mud! Thanks for digging up the link. As usual, there is much more to the story. Strange how that never shows up until you go searching for information from BOTH sides.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099 Likes: 23
Ambassador Field Correspondent Hall of Fame  Lunker
|
Ambassador Field Correspondent Hall of Fame Lunker
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099 Likes: 23 |
No matter the politics or opinions on what the EPA is doing, the EPA has violated the law in exceeding it's authority and legislatively granted authority.
A "named" creek does not mean it is a navigable waterway. Nor does it mean it is a waterway used for commercial transportation of goods and/or services. That was a huge, illegal over reach by the EPA that the SCOTUS has ruled on multiple times....
The Wyoming Rancher will prevail in court, and be completely, financially destitute, thanks to an over-zealous EPA actions and the outright support, or inactions of people that think it (property rights and the constitution) just doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 997 Likes: 57
|
|
OP
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 997 Likes: 57 |
Kind of like the Core Of Engineers does with lakes.....oh wait, he's a not a goberment agency. Surfs aren't suppose to mess with the kings water. lol I glad there are still people still willing to stand up to the king in support of private property rights. Wonder if he has a GoFundMe account?  Here's hoping the next administration eviscerates EPA. 
|
|
|
Moderated by Bill Cody, Bruce Condello, catmandoo, Chris Steelman, Dave Davidson1, esshup, ewest, FireIsHot, Omaha, Sunil, teehjaeh57 |
|
