Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Our ponds verses Government

Presidential veto yesterday/Tuesday against congressional bill that would stop the EPA in its overreach to control private land and water. So where do we go from here? As Texans and Louisianans, I am hopeful there will be a line drawn in the sand by we landowners to stop a non elected government in its attempt to take/govern our private lands and our waters. I am not happy about our overreaching/overtaxing government.

Tracy

While I agree on this topic and government over-reach in general, the presidential veto process is part of our Constitution. The real problem is the lack of good choices for president, especially for the republican party. I do not particularly like Clinton, but she is all we have right now, and I believe she will be our next president. I cannot personally vote for a candidate that denies overwhelming scientific evidence to cater to part of their voter base.

No argument here concerning Veto powers of a President. But I will argue that unelected government office have no right to pass laws. My pond and my land belongs to me. I bought and paid for it with my money. No government loans here, I paid cash.

Tracy

In many many country's non of your land really belongs to you. Nothing under your land may not really belong to you.

We are in real trouble with fresh, clean water. I believe the Government clearly recognizes this, and the value of fresh, clean water in the coming years not in "third world countries" but right here in the U.S.A. As such, perhaps it is an attempt to gain control of all bodies of water so that when what looks like the inevitable comes, the Government already has control of the most valuable resource in the world. It isn't oil. It is fresh, clean water.

As I have posted previously, it is really presumption of guilt vs. innocence question to me. Must a landowner incur the cost to prove a pond will not cause a problem under some arbitrary regulation, or does the EPA need to prove that the pond is causing a problem? Some of the most notable cases in the news are about landowners breaking some rule that has nothing to do with water quality or pollution.

I suspect the Flint, Michigan debacle will add momentum to the EPA's cause....

Bill
Someone has to insure clean water for the masses.and there has to be accountability

Be careful this thread does not get offensive and away from the goals of this forum. There are other forums to discuss political issues. My input is EPA has their plate overflowing with public water source issues and does not need to add more work overload and enlarge to deal with private waters. However,, if your pond receives stream water and regularly discharges water into public waters (streams) then you as a pond owner do have a responsibility to act in common sense and legal manner to where you are not discharging low or harmful, poor, quality water downstream that could impact the habitat and aquatic community. In these cases your water is not really private unless you can regularly keep it all on your property baring flood or emergency events.

I don't know what "overwhelming scientific evidence" you are referring to, but if it is "climate change", the only thing "overwhelming" is the COMPLETE lack of anything proving a natural cycle, that has happened forever, is "man caused". Ever since the British "scientists" claimed global warming, and then admitted all their "scientific evidence" was falsified, many politicians want to pretend it was actually real....In this new PC world, not only is a garbage collector now a sanitation engineer, weather is now "climate change".

Not being a climate scientist myself, I'll go with the folks that are, but you are free to trust whomever you want. As a scientist in another field, I trust the scientific community to base their conclusions on evidence.

To save money in mid 2014 Flint moved from Detroit supplied water to water from the Flint river. Flint river water was higher in chloride and the salt corroded the lead in pre 1986 copper soldered pipes releasing lead.

http://flintwaterstudy.org/2015/09/flint...ation-in-homes/

That's my point, the climate scientists admitted they faked the data and manipulated historic temperatures, yet it is still "real"? I guess changing actual temperature readings is okay, when it supports a flawed "scientific conclusion". Maybe the climatologist were educated with the new math in schools today where rounding and getting close is better than an accurate answer now....


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/en...andal-ever.html

When my grandfather was on the plains of Texas with the cattle and temperatures dropped to -25 and cattle were dying he thought it was the end of the world.

During the dust bowl when it didn't rain for ~3 years and tens of thousands of cattle were dying they thought it was the end of the world.

They didn't have a "greenhouse gas" problem back then.

Tbar - There is a difference between not trusting the scientists/science/evidence and having a different perspective on what action we should take in response to that science. Change almost always comes with losers and winners. Nobody likes being faced with a reality that they do not like, but some deny while others look for solutions.

It's difficult to prove a reality that we may not like when the evidence used to frame that reality has been falsified.
I too am a scientist and am all too aware of instances where the evidence has been falsified to support a desired outcome. This climate change data seems to fall into that category.

Be careful this thread does not get offensive and away from the goals of this forum. Significant and measurable loss of the polar ice cap regions has many concerned, scared, and fearful.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Tbar...for the vast majority of pond owners this is and should be a state issue. I don't really care if California wants to place a government nanny at every pond..."oh mr bureaucrat do I have permission to fish in my pond today?...."oh mr. bureaucrat nanny do i have permission to put Cutrine Plus in my pond today?" "do we have to wait for the environmental study on snail darters to come in first?"....we ain't going to put up with such non-sense in Texas!

The bottom lines are, the "climate change" theory is based on historical data, and that data was "adjusted", for various reasons. Last time I checked, theory is not fact, and since the data is admittedly adjusted to correct inaccuracies, are we to assume it was made accurate, or just manipulated to fit an agenda?

Praise God that one person gets it!

Oh Jeeze not this stuff again!

All I will say about this issue (this time) is that there seems to be a divide in opinions with the people that have to actually deal with the red tape and property issues being of one opinion and the other side that think the rules sound like a good idea yet have no direct dog in the fight so don't see the problem.

"First they came for.................

Be careful this thread does not get offensive and away from the goals of this forum. This thread is being watched closely by the moderators. The main reason the thread is being allowed so far is water ownership as it relates to ponds is being viewed / evaluated by the EPA branch of the government.

I agree on it being a concern to many, however, the ice had receded much further historically. 2014, reported as the warmest recorded year was only the 6th least ice coverage since 1978. The Northwest passage that recently melted and opened up has caused concern also, yet was open and navigated back in 1906.

The scares may be well founded, yet are not "new".