Just read a news article that said the Wyoming rancher who just wanted to put a pond on his property for his livestock and recreation and was threatened with big fines by the EPA won his case. He built a pond on a flowing waterway and had a state permit to do so but the big bully EPA said he had to have their permission. After getting a lawyer and going to court the EPA withdrew all their threatened action and all he had to do was plant some willows around the pond and control livestock access to the pond. Glad he fought them. I like the lawyers statement that for the EPA to have jurisdiction a pond must have a significant "nexus" to a navigable waterway. Here is a link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/...ml?intcmp=hpbt1

Score one for the good guys.

It is good when people stand up to what is wrong. Many would look at the court and lawyer costs and fines if they lost and just fold. I know I would be tempted to. I suspect that is at least part of the strategy at the EPA. The threat of financial ruin is a powerful deterrent to fighting them. Guilty until proven innocent.

Just one more federal agency that has been weaponized.

It's interesting that the rancher got off without any financial penalties.

It sounds like he had legal help from an association or foundation of sorts, so maybe his legal fees are not that bad.

I hope he recovers any legal fees.

IS this the same guy who stocked the "stock pond" with fish, and built a dock on it?

If the guy wanted to build a pond, why did he buy a property that has restrictions against building it? That's just negligent...

Always glad to see happy peaceful endings.

Agreed.

I must have missed that in the article. Here's a quote from it: "Andy Johnson, of Fort Bridger, Wyoming obtained a state permit before building the stock pond in 2012 on his sprawling nine-acre farm for a small herd of livestock."

He applied and received a state permit, I'm glad he gets to keep his pond. But I smile at what I'm reading.

I've never seen a 9 acre farm referred to as sprawling....How many head do you suppose he kept on those 9 acres? The creek supposedly contained a native fish population, brook and brown trout, which to me implies year-round water. Enough to water those few livestock without building a pond, most likely. His pond drains into a manmade irrigation ditch, and is used for irrigation. So this creek flows onto his property and simply terminates there? There is no downstream?

Again, I'm happy for the fellow, but I don't buy the story. I believe there's more to it.

Fantastic outcome

This is far from a new story. It has again been raked from under stinky pond muck. It goes back several years to some really bad journalism and really bad reporting.

Do a little bit of research about this "Wyoming Rancher" who built a pond on his sprawling nine-acre farm for a small herd of livestock. Just imagine him and his family as being your uphill neighbors.

There is a lot more to this story than some of the the sensationalist news organizations keep circulating about it.

Come on guys, I have a sprawling hammock.

Interesting that the EPA folded rather than kept pursuing the case in litigation.

1. I have done such research
2. I am imagining this rancher as my uphill neighbor
3. The only thing that comes to mind during my imagination is when we'll have our next bar-b-q

The State gave the go and he got his permit. This is a slam dunk under the enumerated powers.

Willows! Why water sucking willows?

Love the way his attorneys imply his victory is a victory for all. I've said all along there was no need to worry, but even I think the EPA folded way too quickly. This wasn't a case of them losing the battle, I think it was a case of them running the program out on a test run. Working the kinks out.

"Stock ponds are exempt".... There wasn't a stock pond there until the guy diverted the creek to build it! Come on now, the EPA couldn't of pressed the issue and won?

The guy wanted a pond in his front yard, period. Stock pond came after the fact.

You guys are getting close to the edge again with a forbidden topic.

Trust me when this starts a lot of people get angry - so stop.