Pond Boss Magazine
https://www.pondboss.com/images/userfiles/image/20130301193901_6_150by50orangewhyshouldsubscribejpeg.jpg
Advertisment
Newest Members
Shotgun01, Dan H, Stipker, LunkerHunt23, Jeanjules
18,451 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums36
Topics40,900
Posts557,086
Members18,452
Most Online3,612
Jan 10th, 2023
Top Posters
esshup 28,414
ewest 21,474
Cecil Baird1 20,043
Bill Cody 15,110
Who's Online Now
13 members (dg84s, Shorthose, Sunil, Freg, IND1371, Augie, Fishingadventure, Groundhog7, Brandon Larson, Dave Davidson1, PRCS, Theo Gallus, BillyE), 798 guests, and 302 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
#412968 05/27/15 01:04 PM
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,892
Likes: 144
C
OP Offline
C
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,892
Likes: 144
I don't know if this topic has its own thread yet. If not, maybe we can start over again here or someone can repost this in the correct thread.

update on the EPA taking control over virtually all waterways:

EPA completes water grab

Is there a legal expert who can keep us posted on what this bill really means and what we can do?

Is this control retroactive so those of us who have ponds that used to be wetlands or where water flow in and out could now be federal property have to take some steps to protect our private resource?

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,315
F
Offline
F
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,315

Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
R
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
R
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
Canyon...as I read the new regulation, the EPA gets full control in determining what a "New" pond or farm is, regardless of ANY other federal agency determination...even courts....they could decide you walking on it makes it new



Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,692
J
JKB Offline
Hall of Fame 2015
Lunker
Offline
Hall of Fame 2015
Lunker
J
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,692
I think you need to be able to read between the lines, and understand a very large scope as to what this means.

You live on Canyon Creek Dr. in GR. I live in GH, which we both share the Grand River, Correct?

The sewage overflows from Grand Rapids, effects us over here. You flushing the toilet could mean crap floating to Lake Michigan and effecting everyone in between. Several fish farms moved over the past 15 years to better sites with really good water.

You may not realise this, but there were quite a few fish farms off the Grand River, but the waste from Grand Rapids...

Not sure how bad it is today, but the saying was, "Rains in GR, Crap today!", and that is literal!

Canyon, you have probably not been to a waste water treatment facility? My ultimate gross out point was when I had to work on a storage vessel, and all the top floating stuff was condoms and feminine pads. This is in the same water coming out of your tap eek

GH gets their water from Lake MI. Well's up north.

Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,892
Likes: 144
C
OP Offline
C
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,892
Likes: 144
Several good points made in your post JKB.

I'm fine with more EPA regulation -IF- that solves the sewage in the drinking water problem. I know much effort has gone into preventing sewage being diverted into stormwater lines during big rain events, and the frequency of that occurring has been much less lately. I know millions of dollars have been spent in creating a separate system to handle stormwater run off and to keep those lines separate from sewer lines. Water quality has improved in the Grand River because of it. Without more strict water quality regulations the factories lining the grand river in downtown GR would probably still be discharging their pollution into the river. We have seen the river clean up and the downtown revitalize as the river became more usable for recreational boating/fishing etc. I'm sure as with anything, much more could be done to prevent all sewage from ever getting into the river.

However if the EPA is telling us that the water confined to our backyards requires state or US approved water sampling periodically, or cannot be added to or subtracted from, or permits are needed to treat unwanted weeds etc, then we might as well all turn our ponds into something else.

My toilet flushes into a septic tank so you are safe from downstream visuals on our sewage JKB. However, I'm sure the company that pumps the tanks out has lots of regulations about what they can do with the 'waste' after that.

Doesn't sewage mixed with river water just create a good 'bloom' for the fish downstream? smile

Last edited by canyoncreek; 05/27/15 02:52 PM.
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,692
J
JKB Offline
Hall of Fame 2015
Lunker
Offline
Hall of Fame 2015
Lunker
J
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,692
Human sewage never mixes well with anything.

A company not too far from here tried to make fertilizer of what came out of your butt after you ate a healthy burrito. Mildly successful at first, but it was just too gross for anyone to really get into.

They could not get rid of the stink, no matter what they tried.

A company out of Wisconsin sells people poop fertilizer that is supposed to be disinfected.

JKB #413000 05/27/15 03:35 PM
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
R
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
R
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
Originally Posted By: JKB
Human sewage never mixes well with anything.

A company not too far from here tried to make fertilizer of what came out of your butt after you ate a healthy burrito. Mildly successful at first, but it was just too gross for anyone to really get into.

They could not get rid of the stink, no matter what they tried.

A company out of Wisconsin sells people poop fertilizer that is supposed to be disinfected.



Life all starts, lives on, and ends with crap.....it's just the way it is in any ecosystem. You can't support an over abundance of people without getting an over abundance of crap....sooner or later, nature will flush the toilet when it's too full of crap....the EPA, like most governmental agencies does almost nothing useful with regulations, outside of making every aspect of life more difficult and costly. It wasn't the EPA that cleaned up the great lakes..it was an invasive zebra mussel...along with businesses finding ways to overcome regulatory costs and make a profit...

Fish farms generate fish waste, they are bad...we better kill all those fish thriving in the river off it also that create more waste...

Few corporate polluters actually MEET EPA guidelines/regulations...they simply buy credits and pay a fee to ignore them....

Last edited by Rainman; 05/27/15 03:37 PM.


Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,692
J
JKB Offline
Hall of Fame 2015
Lunker
Offline
Hall of Fame 2015
Lunker
J
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,692
Originally Posted By: Rainman
Originally Posted By: JKB
Human sewage never mixes well with anything.

A company not too far from here tried to make fertilizer of what came out of your butt after you ate a healthy burrito. Mildly successful at first, but it was just too gross for anyone to really get into.

They could not get rid of the stink, no matter what they tried.

A company out of Wisconsin sells people poop fertilizer that is supposed to be disinfected.



Life all starts, lives on, and ends with crap.....it's just the way it is in any ecosystem. You can't support an over abundance of people without getting an over abundance of crap....sooner or later, nature will flush the toilet when it's too full of crap....the EPA, like most governmental agencies does almost nothing useful with regulations, outside of making every aspect of life more difficult and costly. It wasn't the EPA that cleaned up the great lakes..it was an invasive zebra mussel...along with businesses finding ways to overcome regulatory costs and make a profit...

Fish farms generate fish waste, they are bad...we better kill all those fish thriving in the river off it also that create more waste...

Few corporate polluters actually MEET EPA guidelines/regulations...they simply buy credits and pay a fee to ignore them....


Zebra and Quaga are actually killing the great lakes. I know that some of the Salmon have been introduced to take care of another invasive, the Alewives, but the mussels are reportedly to cover the entire bottom of the lakes at this time, and the baitfish are getting thin due to lack of food, therefore impacts the larger fish.

Not a darn thing you can do about this.

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 644
W
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
W
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 644
But think about all that crystal clear, mussel filtered water that will be able to be piped to California! I kid, I kid. smile


12 ac pond in NW Missouri. 28' max depth at full pool. Fish Present: LMB, BG, RES, YP, CC, WB, HSB, WE, BCP, WCP, GSH.
JKB #413015 05/27/15 04:08 PM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
Originally Posted By: JKB
Originally Posted By: Rainman
Originally Posted By: JKB
Human sewage never mixes well with anything.

A company not too far from here tried to make fertilizer of what came out of your butt after you ate a healthy burrito. Mildly successful at first, but it was just too gross for anyone to really get into.

They could not get rid of the stink, no matter what they tried.

A company out of Wisconsin sells people poop fertilizer that is supposed to be disinfected.



Life all starts, lives on, and ends with crap.....it's just the way it is in any ecosystem. You can't support an over abundance of people without getting an over abundance of crap....sooner or later, nature will flush the toilet when it's too full of crap....the EPA, like most governmental agencies does almost nothing useful with regulations, outside of making every aspect of life more difficult and costly. It wasn't the EPA that cleaned up the great lakes..it was an invasive zebra mussel...along with businesses finding ways to overcome regulatory costs and make a profit...

Fish farms generate fish waste, they are bad...we better kill all those fish thriving in the river off it also that create more waste...

Few corporate polluters actually MEET EPA guidelines/regulations...they simply buy credits and pay a fee to ignore them....


Zebra and Quaga are actually killing the great lakes. I know that some of the Salmon have been introduced to take care of another invasive, the Alewives, but the mussels are reportedly to cover the entire bottom of the lakes at this time, and the baitfish are getting thin due to lack of food, therefore impacts the larger fish.

Not a darn thing you can do about this.


Too bad the water is so cold....be a good opportunity to try and grow some monster RES to compete with those at Havasu!

Maybe a new, world record Pumpkinseed is on the horizon....


"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.
JKB #413016 05/27/15 04:19 PM
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
R
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
R
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
Originally Posted By: JKB
Originally Posted By: Rainman
Originally Posted By: JKB
Human sewage never mixes well with anything.

A company not too far from here tried to make fertilizer of what came out of your butt after you ate a healthy burrito. Mildly successful at first, but it was just too gross for anyone to really get into.

They could not get rid of the stink, no matter what they tried.

A company out of Wisconsin sells people poop fertilizer that is supposed to be disinfected.



Life all starts, lives on, and ends with crap.....it's just the way it is in any ecosystem. You can't support an over abundance of people without getting an over abundance of crap....sooner or later, nature will flush the toilet when it's too full of crap....the EPA, like most governmental agencies does almost nothing useful with regulations, outside of making every aspect of life more difficult and costly. It wasn't the EPA that cleaned up the great lakes..it was an invasive zebra mussel...along with businesses finding ways to overcome regulatory costs and make a profit...

Fish farms generate fish waste, they are bad...we better kill all those fish thriving in the river off it also that create more waste...

Few corporate polluters actually MEET EPA guidelines/regulations...they simply buy credits and pay a fee to ignore them....


Zebra and Quaga are actually killing the great lakes. I know that some of the Salmon have been introduced to take care of another invasive, the Alewives, but the mussels are reportedly to cover the entire bottom of the lakes at this time, and the baitfish are getting thin due to lack of food, therefore impacts the larger fish.

Not a darn thing you can do about this.


IDK, the reports I have read show struggling species now thriving and the only "damage" from zebra mussel being utility installation related. Many a fish species bellies full of Zebras, lower pollutant concentrations in sediments and water column. I guess the "killing" is all in the eye of the beholder.

I'd also say the reports of the "entire bottom of the lakes being covered" is GROSSLY exaggerated...there just isn't enough food to grow THAT much, of anything. Nature/species has always thrived and declined all through it's existence...before man was here, and it will after/if we aren't. That is not saying anyone should indiscriminately pollute or there should be no regulation at all. It is saying many regulations cause more problems than they can ever correct.

Like the old saying goes...Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The EPA is seeking near absolute power, and has already tried to declare judicial restraints do not apply to the agency after the most recent Supreme Court rebuke of regulatory misapplications...that should scare most any reasonable person badly!


Last edited by Rainman; 05/27/15 04:36 PM.


Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 18
J
Offline
J
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 18
Of course clean water is good.

I just don't want to go through the dam (ha! Pun) federal government to build my lake in 10 years. That sounds like a nightmare!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,692
J
JKB Offline
Hall of Fame 2015
Lunker
Offline
Hall of Fame 2015
Lunker
J
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,692
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
Originally Posted By: JKB
Originally Posted By: Rainman
Originally Posted By: JKB
Human sewage never mixes well with anything.

A company not too far from here tried to make fertilizer of what came out of your butt after you ate a healthy burrito. Mildly successful at first, but it was just too gross for anyone to really get into.

They could not get rid of the stink, no matter what they tried.

A company out of Wisconsin sells people poop fertilizer that is supposed to be disinfected.



Life all starts, lives on, and ends with crap.....it's just the way it is in any ecosystem. You can't support an over abundance of people without getting an over abundance of crap....sooner or later, nature will flush the toilet when it's too full of crap....the EPA, like most governmental agencies does almost nothing useful with regulations, outside of making every aspect of life more difficult and costly. It wasn't the EPA that cleaned up the great lakes..it was an invasive zebra mussel...along with businesses finding ways to overcome regulatory costs and make a profit...

Fish farms generate fish waste, they are bad...we better kill all those fish thriving in the river off it also that create more waste...

Few corporate polluters actually MEET EPA guidelines/regulations...they simply buy credits and pay a fee to ignore them....


Zebra and Quaga are actually killing the great lakes. I know that some of the Salmon have been introduced to take care of another invasive, the Alewives, but the mussels are reportedly to cover the entire bottom of the lakes at this time, and the baitfish are getting thin due to lack of food, therefore impacts the larger fish.

Not a darn thing you can do about this.


Too bad the water is so cold....be a good opportunity to try and grow some monster RES to compete with those at Havasu!

Maybe a new, world record Pumpkinseed is on the horizon....


Actually Spark, that has been suggested, and discussed.

What is slowly coming to light is that Walleye are taking advantage of the situation.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Online Content
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
However if the EPA is telling us that the water confined to our backyards requires state or US approved water sampling periodically, or cannot be added to or subtracted from, or permits are needed to treat unwanted weeds etc, then we might as well all turn our ponds into something else.

That is exactly what they have in mind.

Rules now in effect subject to challenge or de-funding.
















Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
R
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
R
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
Originally Posted By: ewest
then we might as well all turn our ponds into something else.


I wonder what permit that would require.....?



Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,793
Likes: 71
Zep Offline
Hall of Fame 2014
Offline
Hall of Fame 2014
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,793
Likes: 71
canyoncreek this is just more control freak incrementalism from DC.


Fishing has never been about the fish....

Zep #413065 05/27/15 10:13 PM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,414
Likes: 792
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,414
Likes: 792
The final Clean Water Rule was announced today by EPA and will be effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. RISE Grassroots is currently reviewing it and so far, have not noted any substantial changes from the April 2014 proposed rule which was shot down. The Clean Water Rule significantly expands the definition of "waters of the U.S." under Clean Water Act jurisdiction and we believe will still have a negative impact on public health and safety due to increased permitting requirements and costs for important pesticide applications.

I got this in an e-mail today and it sounds like the EPA is trying to do an end around. "New and improved" regs that are no different than 2 months ago.


www.hoosierpondpros.com


http://www.pondboss.com/subscribe.asp?c=4
3/4 to 1 1/4 ac pond LMB, SMB, PS, BG, RES, CC, YP, Bardello BG, (RBT & Blue Tilapia - seasonal).
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,284
Likes: 288
Moderator
Offline
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,284
Likes: 288
Originally Posted By: Rainman
Originally Posted By: ewest
then we might as well all turn our ponds into something else.


I wonder what permit that would require.....?

Probably a Lawyer/Lobbyist, patience, and deep pockets.


AL

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
My personal feeling, is not to worry too much about it. I think it's easy to envision the worst, most dreadful outcome and get all wound up over it, but in my experience I seldom see that worst case scenario take place.

I won't be draining my ponds just yet.


"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: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
E
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
Online Content
Moderator
Hall of Fame 2014
Lunker
E
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 264
FYI

May 28th: EPA Finalizes Proposed 'Waters of the US' Rule
EPA writes off rural America and finalizes proposed 'Waters of the US' Rule

“Nothing left unregulated” is the apparent motto of the Environmental Protection Agency. Today, the Agency finalized its “Waters of the United States” proposed rule, which unilaterally strips private property rights and adds hundreds of thousands of stream miles and acres of land to federal jurisdiction.

Under the guise of clarifying the Clean Water Act, the EPA and the Army Corps added ambiguous language to the law that leaves regulation up to the subjectivity of individual regulators across the country. By law, the EPA must read and consider all comments submitted on the proposed rule, but only six months after receiving over one million public comments on the proposal, EPA has finalized the rule. Philip Ellis, National Cattlemen's Beef Association president, said this is a clear indication there is no intention of considering the concerns of those most impacted by the rule.

It shouldn’t be a surprise, however, that a flawed rule would come from a flawed process. Not only did the EPA write the proposal expanding the reach of the Clean Water Act without input from agriculture, the Agency implemented their own grassroots lobbying campaign to drown out the concerns of private property owners. The tax-payer funded campaign was promoted through social media channels and called for people to share EPA’s oversimplified and misleading talking points.

“The former Obama campaign officials that received political appointments at EPA are apparently putting their activist knowledge base to use,” said Ellis. “Soliciting endorsements and support is a far cry from simply educating the public, as EPA officials claim.”

The Agency even went a step further during a press conference when Administrator McCarthy called the concerns of cattlemen “ludicrous”. This doesn’t sound like an Agency interested in rural America at all. It’s an Agency with an agenda.

In fact, the EPA used maps of waters and wetlands throughout the country that detailed the extent of their proposal, but it wasn’t until the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology was doing research in preparation for a hearing that the maps were discovered. The taxpayer funded maps, presumably kept hidden for years, painted an “astonishing picture” of what EPA intended to regulate, as Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) explained.

“The EPA has been spending taxpayer dollars employing a grassroots lobbying campaign, hiding information, dismissing concerns from stakeholders, and holding closed-door meetings with environmental activists,” said Brenda Richards, Idaho rancher and Public Lands Council president. “There is no question that this rule will infringe on private property rights and usurp state authority over land and water use. Ambiguous language included will only serve to further jam courtrooms across the country with jurisdictional challenges.”

While NCBA and PLC are reviewing the details of the final rule, the entire process has been flawed and must be set aside; the final rule poses an unnecessary threat to private property owners and cattle producers across the country. The only fix is to start over with all stakeholders’ input and direction from Congress.

National Cattlemen's Beef Association

Last edited by ewest; 05/28/15 09:35 AM.















Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
I went to the article linked by canyoncreek in the very first post in this thread, and a couple statements stood out.

Quote:

“We’re finalizing a clean water rule to protect the streams and the wetlands that one in three Americans rely on for drinking water. And we’re doing that without creating any new permitting requirements and maintaining all previous exemptions and exclusions,” EPA head Gina McCarthy told reporters Wednesday."

and:

“This rule is about clarification, and in fact, we’re adding exclusions for features like artificial lakes and ponds, water-filled depressions from constructions and grass swales,” she said


"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: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,414
Likes: 792
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,414
Likes: 792
I didn't have time to read the whole proposal last night - not enough time in the day as it's 297 pages long.

But, in the first 30 pages, what I saw was alarming to me. I can think of 2 people right off the bat who'd be affected by this proposal. Dwight and Fireishot.

Some snippets:

To provide that protection, the Supreme Court has consistently agreed that the geographic scope of the CWA reaches beyond waters that are navigable in fact. Peer-reviewed science and practical experience demonstrate that upstream waters, including headwaters and wetlands, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream waters by playing a crucial role in controlling sediment, filtering pollutants, reducing flooding, providing habitat for fish and other aquatic wildlife, and many other vital chemical, physical, and biological processes.

For instance, I believe FIH's pond is considered to be the headwaters of the Lake Fork River. Wouldn’t this affect his pond?
Part of the CWA is to further define what is to be considered “Waters of the United States”.

““Adjacent waters” include wetlands, ponds, lakes, oxbows, impoundments, and similar water features.”
“Waters located in whole or in part in the 100-year floodplain and that are within 1,500 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a traditional navigable water, interstate water, the territorial seas, an impoundment, or a tributary, as defined in the rule (“floodplain waters”).”

I believe this would affect Dwights pond.

I think there's another provision in there that says any water that is within 4,000 feet of any 100 yr. floodplain.

Here they are leaving the door open so (in my mind) ANY BOW could be considered part of the CWA.
“The agencies recognize that there are individual waters outside of the “neighboring” boundaries stated above where the science may demonstrate through a case-specific analysis that there exists a significant nexus to a downstream traditional navigable water, interstate water, or the territorial seas. However, these waters are not determined jurisdictional by rule and will be evaluated through a case-specific analysis.”

Could a pothole in the Midwestern prairie be considered a pond? Could a pond be considered a pothole? “In this final rule, the agencies have identified by rule, five specific types of waters in specific regions that science demonstrates should be subject to a significant nexus analysis and are considered similarly situated by rule because they function alike and are sufficiently close to function together in affecting downstream waters. These five types of waters are Prairie potholes, Carolina and Delmarva bays, pocosins, western vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie wetlands.”

That's only from the first 30 pages. What's in the remaining 267 pages???????

What I read, it seems that the CWA is more about the EPA writing about justifying the rule than the body of the rule itself. The body is buried among all the mumbo jumbo, and then they reference other regulations that you have to look up to understand what they are talking about.

I was under the impression that the EPA was told to go re-write it. I think they are flipping us all the bird and going ahead with it in it's original form anyway.

I may be wrong, but from my understanding, the steps that the EPA took will make the CWA legal in 60 days. If we don't get off our arses and write and call our congressmen and senators and create a big stink we will be stuck with it and all it's nuances.



Last edited by esshup; 05/29/15 07:29 AM.

www.hoosierpondpros.com


http://www.pondboss.com/subscribe.asp?c=4
3/4 to 1 1/4 ac pond LMB, SMB, PS, BG, RES, CC, YP, Bardello BG, (RBT & Blue Tilapia - seasonal).
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 57
T
Offline
T
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 57
esshup, thank you for your posting here. I have and will again contact our representatives in Washington, but My first thoughts here are the same that I posted awhile back, when I said at what point do you take up arms against a government? George Washington and Paul Revere come to mind when I think of such things. I am by a peaceful man, but I ask myself, would a takeover of my pond push me to far? Would this be any different from the two men I mentioned above? I am not suggesting that one should take up arms today over what would be considered an overreaching EPA or government arm, but at some point a man should stand his ground, or Draw a line in the Sand. So I will ask you if the EPA took or attempted to take control of your pond, what would you do? And if you stood ground, would there be any here among us that would stand with you? I wonder to myself where I might stand. Would I be all talk and no action? To be honest, I am not sure, but I think the taking of my pond might be the line in the sand.

Tracy


Do not judge me by the politicians in my City, State or Federal Government.


Tracy
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
I'm thinking there may be a pretty long stretch of road between proposal, acceptance, and implementation.

And at risk of aligning myself with the "other" side, it seems to me we have had very similar conversations here on the forum in the past. I remember stating that I will never use a well to fill my ponds, as that clean drinking water I'm pumping doesn't just belong to me. The aquifer doesn't stop at my property lines.

I also recall it getting pretty quiet when I asked why we shouldn't be held responsible for our fish escaping out overflows and entering public water. If I remember correctly, It even went so far as to be suggested to me that public discussion on this matter might not be in our best interest?

http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=266647

PondBoss is a community of folks who are extremely passionate about their ponds, their land, and their way of life. I get that, and I think I'm of a similar mindset. But how is it okay for us to get up in arms over the possibility of a neighbor doing something to negatively impact our own property, but fall silent over the possibility of something... fish, chemical, whatever, coming out of our own ponds and lakes and affecting someone else down the line?

I think the overwhelming majority of those here are good stewards of the environment, and care enough to take pains to try and treat others as they would like to be treated themselves. But from living where I do, I am also assured that many feel and act otherwise. I don't want someone telling me what I can and can't do with my own ponds, but in my opinion there needs to be an accountability somewhere along the line, for those who are unwilling to govern themselves accordingly.


"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: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,086
Likes: 93
S
Offline
S
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,086
Likes: 93
The question becomes "when are enough regulations enough?"

As regulations become more and more onerous, do we just continually increase regulations to the point there no longer is any "private property"?

Not a year goes by that the federal register does not increase by many thousands of pages. When do we get to the point there are so many laws we all are breaking the law daily simply because of so many laws and regulations there is no way to know what the law is?

We may be there already.


John

I subscribe to Pond Boss Magazine
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Today's Birthdays
Bob Lusk, GaryK, GrizzFan, PhotographerDave
Recent Posts
Working on a .5acre disaster, I mean pond.
by Sunil - 03/28/24 03:32 PM
New 2 acre pond stocking plan
by Dave Davidson1 - 03/28/24 02:50 PM
1 year after stocking question
by Dave Davidson1 - 03/28/24 02:44 PM
Happy Birthday Bob Lusk!!
by Sunil - 03/28/24 12:39 PM
Paper-shell crayfish and Japanese snails
by esshup - 03/28/24 10:39 AM
Brooder Shiners and Fry, What to do??
by Freg - 03/28/24 09:42 AM
Relative weight charts in Excel ? Calculations?
by esshup - 03/28/24 08:36 AM
Dewatering bags seeded to form berms?
by Justin W - 03/28/24 08:19 AM
Reducing fish biomass
by FishinRod - 03/28/24 08:18 AM
Questions and Feedback on SMB
by Donatello - 03/27/24 03:10 PM
2024 North Texas Optimal BG food Group Buy
by Dave Davidson1 - 03/27/24 08:15 AM
Newly Uploaded Images
Eagles Over The Pond Yesterday
Eagles Over The Pond Yesterday
by Tbar, December 10
Deer at Theo's 2023
Deer at Theo's 2023
by Theo Gallus, November 13
Minnow identification
Minnow identification
by Mike Troyer, October 6
Sharing the Food
Sharing the Food
by FishinRod, September 9
Nice BGxRES
Nice BGxRES
by Theo Gallus, July 28
Snake Identification
Snake Identification
by Rangersedge, July 12

� 2014 POND BOSS INC. all rights reserved USA and Worldwide

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5