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.