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
Topics40,899
Posts557,051
Members18,451
Most Online3,612
Jan 10th, 2023
Top Posters
esshup 28,407
ewest 21,474
Cecil Baird1 20,043
Bill Cody 15,110
Who's Online Now
2 members (Rainman, Bobbss), 458 guests, and 152 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 12 1 2 3 4 11 12
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
I agree.


"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: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
R
RAH Offline
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
R
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
The point is not to flip out, but rather to make your voice heard. Farm Bureau is good place to start.

Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 113
F
Offline
F
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 113
Its not law - its EPA redefining the definition of what water they control.The new definition make navigable water any place that is or has ever been wet. And if you are doing something that effects that "water"
they can fine you daily till you change it. That about sums up what 2600 pages say.
The POTUS says he will put it in effect and veto any attempt to stop it.
IT seems the congress no longer makes laws . Just the branches of government and President with executive orders.
The bill that just passed the house to stop this is not veto proof with the # votes they had.
It needs democrat votes to make it veto proof.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,712
Likes: 3
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,712
Likes: 3
Originally Posted By: RAH
The point is not to flip out, but rather to make your voice heard. Farm Bureau is good place to start.


That is a very good point. Somewhat like Pond Boss, Farm Bureau is a voice, but they are a much stronger and larger voice than us, because of their size.

From my involvement as a long time member and officer of the West Virginia Aquaculture Association, the management and Farm Bureau membership is very well placed and informed regarding this issue. IMHO they cannot be extreme to either side. They represent those who farm our lands that can affect our waters, and they represent those who rely on farming the waters, who can also affect our waters.

Let's let realism rule. Read what has been proposed by the EPA, and inform yourself on what is being proposed by the US Senate and US House of Representatives. Yes, there are divides, but ...

Don't believe what "talk radio" and the many scare-websites are posting. The pothole full of water in your driveway is not going to be regulated -- even under the proposed regulations.

Please don't just sit back and read all the garbage. Get involved.

There is no perfect solution, but I believe the middle will win.


Subscribe to Pond Boss Magazine

Peculiar Friends are Better than No Friends at All!
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,105
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,105
Water is a finite source and must be taken care of. I was fighting for taking care of our water when I was 12 (I'm 81 now) at the local conservation club I belonged to in a small town in Indiana. Oil and pollutants were coming from the Anchor Hocking Glass plant and running into the White River which flows on through to Indianapolis. The pollutants were so thick it looked like pure oil in this ditch. The adults of the conservation club were afraid to even talk about this problem because Anchor provided half of the jobs in our town. Behind our city dump was our water treatment plant and was located on white river. And just on the down side of it the condoms were so thick that the bottom of the river was solid white with condoms. To this day I walk and kayak the streams in my area and I know pollution and where it comes from. My farm and the farms in my area are no till farm and are farmed with chemicals from beginning to end. And with every farm ditched with underground plastic dranging piping the runoff is instant and into the streams. I have a small farm and I know how this works.

The EPA is the only protection I know of.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/nyregi...WT.nav=top-news

Last edited by John Monroe; 06/06/15 02:30 AM.

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
R
RAH Offline
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
R
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
The new regulations will not change the situation that you describe. Enforcing existing regulations will. Everything looks like a nail when the only tool you have is a hammer. How will a new law (call it a rule if you like) change folks not acting on currently illegal activities? As someone who has already spent 25 years developing wildlife habitat on most of my land, I do not want more rules, but rather responsible enforcement of the existing rules. Maybe we need a million dollar study to investigate why common sense is an endangered species. Then we need a 3000-page "rule" to protect it.

Last edited by RAH; 06/06/15 06:29 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 agree on enforcement of existing laws. However I also think some of the new regulation might reflect changes in society, and more importantly, address possible changes in climate. Water resources, in certain geographies at least, are declining. For whatever reason one chooses to embrace.


"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
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 207
I hate to keep going back to this, but of course I will. Where in Artcile 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution does the federal government have enumerated powers over your pond, any of your property at all? Unless you live on the border of a neighboring state that is with navigable waters running into that state.

This is a State issue and the interstate commerce clause would only apply if you were affecting another States waters. The stretch is to great to use the interstate commerce clause for this, and every other left wing regulation we have, that attempts to make water run up hill.

If not in Article 1 Section 8 then our founders said that it was "left to the States and to the people". If we simply followed this premise, we would have law much more tailored to our individual needs and activities. If a State got out of hand, we'd have the option to move and live in a "more free" State.

This is this simple.


I just got a new pond, I made it twice because I aint so bright.
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 207
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 207
Originally Posted By: John Monroe
Water is a finite source and must be taken care of. I was fighting for taking care of our water when I was 12 (I'm 81 now) at the local conservation club I belonged to in a small town in Indiana. Oil and pollutants were coming from the Anchor Hocking Glass plant and running into the White River which flows on through to Indianapolis. The pollutants were so thick it looked like pure oil in this ditch. The adults of the conservation club were afraid to even talk about this problem because Anchor provided half of the jobs in our town. Behind our city dump was our water treatment plant and was located on white river. And just on the down side of it the condoms were so thick that the bottom of the river was solid white with condoms. To this day I walk and kayak the streams in my area and I know pollution and where it comes from. My farm and the farms in my area are no till farm and are farmed with chemicals from beginning to end. And with every farm ditched with underground plastic dranging piping the runoff is instant and into the streams. I have a small farm and I know how this works.

The EPA is the only protection I know of.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/nyregi...WT.nav=top-news


You forgot a "protection", your State. This is the business of your State, right or wrong. It's exactly how this country was set up. If we want an epa, ammend the Constitution. Oh wait, you can't, the votes aren't there. Because the votes are not there, we just circumvent the Constitution and do what we want. The founders would be so proud.


I just got a new pond, I made it twice because I aint so bright.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
And if all 50 states got together and agreed on a common law or rule, without any federal intervention, then where would you go?

What if you have a groundwater pond, that influences and is influenced by, the aquifer? And that aquifer extends over the state line?


"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: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
R
RAH Offline
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
R
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
The fear is based on experience with the lack of common sense shown by some bureaucrats in the EPA in enforcing existing "rules". Some enforcers are more interested in the permit than in the effect of the action taken by the landowner. If the EPA had demonstrated better judgement in the past, then folks would not be so concerned. This lack of common sense is not restricted to federal agencies. I wanted to use an artesian well on my place that was dumping water on the ground as input for a geothermal system. The water would be returned to the same location being dumped into a wetland that we built years earlier. Our county has a ban on open systems so I went to the local commission and explained my case. The board agreed with me but their lawyer warned the next person could sue them if they let me do this. The county surveyor agreed even though he stated that he only gets 1 or 2 calls a year to inquire about these systems. In the end they said they would consider my request and get back to me. They never did this and I bought a conventional system from a vendor outside of the county many months later. The result was less business for the county, a less efficient heating system, and a disgruntled citizen. Now there is government at work! This is not a rare case.

Last edited by RAH; 06/06/15 07:27 AM.
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 32
J
Offline
J
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 32
The federal government desired end result stays the same, 'control the people'. That's what laws are for...this law vehicle can and is being used too an extreme with control in mind.

Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 996
Likes: 57
T
Offline
T
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 996
Likes: 57

Perspective


The Over Regulation Nation......Regulating Ourselves Into Surdom.



The Towering Federal Register


Quote:
The Federal Register’s page count is by no means a perfect proxy for measuring regulatory burdens. A particularly onerous regulation might take up only a page or two, while one that costs relatively little could ramble on for dozens of pages. Despite this important shortcoming, it is still one of the more useful yardsticks we have, as it indicates a large and active federal government. Now let’s do some measuring.

Since the first edition of Ten Thousand Commandments was published in 1993, a touch less than 1.43 million Federal Register pages have been published. That’s an average of 71,470 pages per year. Considering that an average year has 250 workdays (the Federal Register is not published on weekends or holidays), that roughly averages out to 286 pages per day. It takes a very busy federal government to fill that many pages each and every workday.......

From that, we can calculate that our 1.43 million-page stack would be 476 feet tall. It would also weigh more than seven tons. Fittingly, this regulatory tower would rival the Washington Monument’s 555 feet for supremacy of Washington’s skyline. In fact, if the tower were to keep growing at its 20-year average pace, it would surpass the Washington Monument in 2016.......

The towering Federal Register



How Many Federal Laws Are There?


Quote:
At the reference desk, we are frequently asked to estimate the number of federal laws in force. However, trying to tally this number is nearly impossible.......

How Many Federal Laws Are There?

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
Tbar...at our previous office when we moved in the inspector said we had to re-design our bathrooms to be ADA compliant at considerable expense. We told her "we are on the 2nd floor and this building does not have an elevator....so how is anyone in a wheel-chair ever going to get up here"?

She said "I hear ya but the law is the law". In other words...it makes no sense...but we are the gvt...and we've been put in place by control freaks....to force you to do stuff that makes no sense.

So we spent thousands re-designing the bathrooms to be wheel chair accessible on the 2nd floor of a building with no elevator.

We were in that office close to 10 years and no one in a wheel chair ever came to our upstairs office.


Fishing has never been about the fish....

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,105
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,105
Originally Posted By: timshufflin

You forgot a "protection", your State. This is the business of your State, right or wrong. It's exactly how this country was set up. If we want an epa, ammend the Constitution. Oh wait, you can't, the votes aren't there. Because the votes are not there, we just circumvent the Constitution and do what we want. The founders would be so proud.


I think as the founding fathers wrote the constitution they couldn't fathom water pollution and equal rights for clean water in the 200 plus years in the future. Pristine water was all around them and plentiful and not a problem. Plentiful cheap food production will trump clean water most of the time. Power interest will win out most of the time. I was contacted a dozen years ago to take water samples in the streams around my area with a water kit I would be trained to use. They wanted to see how much pollution, what kind and where it was coming from. I said I would but I would also take sample from the tile running into the streams since I knew that was where most of the pollution was coming from. I was told I couldn't do that because it would make people mad, so I declined to be part of the fraud.


Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
R
RAH Offline
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
R
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
Actually the Founding Fathers were very aware that they could not predict the future. That is why they provided a way to change the Constitution. They did not provide for that change being done by executive order, or by the EPA.

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,407
Likes: 788
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Offline
Moderator
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Lunker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,407
Likes: 788
Originally Posted By: RAH
Actually the Founding Fathers were very aware that they could not predict the future. That is why they provided a way to change the Constitution. They did not provide for that change being done by executive order, or by the EPA.


+1


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: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
R
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
Online Content
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
R
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
I also do not believe the Founding Fathers ever anticipated one branch of government openly and completely defying and ignoring the other 2 branches as is been done recently. Perhaps that was why the second amendment was ratified....to prevent and deter any unchecked power by only a few.



Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
R
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
Online Content
Ambassador
Field Correspondent
Hall of Fame
Lunker
R
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099
Likes: 22
Originally Posted By: John Monroe
Originally Posted By: timshufflin

You forgot a "protection", your State. This is the business of your State, right or wrong. It's exactly how this country was set up. If we want an epa, ammend the Constitution. Oh wait, you can't, the votes aren't there. Because the votes are not there, we just circumvent the Constitution and do what we want. The founders would be so proud.


I think as the founding fathers wrote the constitution they couldn't fathom water pollution and equal rights for clean water in the 200 plus years in the future. Pristine water was all around them and plentiful and not a problem. Plentiful cheap food production will trump clean water most of the time. Power interest will win out most of the time. I was contacted a dozen years ago to take water samples in the streams around my area with a water kit I would be trained to use. They wanted to see how much pollution, what kind and where it was coming from. I said I would but I would also take sample from the tile running into the streams since I knew that was where most of the pollution was coming from. I was told I couldn't do that because it would make people mad, so I declined to be part of the fraud.


I'm afraid I can't quite agree that "pristine water was all around them". Pollution was everywhere there were people, even the indigenous. That is why we can discover so many camps along waterways...the pollution left behind. Granted, far fewer people were on the land, yet many rivers are less polluted now than they were in the 1500's. There were no landfills, no sewage treatment plants, no concern for what gets dumped in a stream after cutting timber, refining petroleum, firing bricks, etc. IMHO, the creation of the EPA, and setting the general standards as originally intended, definitely played a part in waters being cleaned, yet it was education, awareness and instilling a sense of responsibility for our surroundings by the general population that made the largest impact.



Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
R
RAH Offline
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
R
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
Things were not always rosy in the past:

"In 1771, Tobias Smollet wrote, "If I would drink water, I must quaff the mawkish contents of an open aqueduct, exposed to all manner of defilement, or swallow that which comes from the River Thames, impregnated with all the filth of London and Westminster. Human excrement is the least offensive part of the concrete, which is composed of all the drugs, minerals, and poisons used in mechanics and manufacture, enriched with the putrefying carcases of beasts and men, and mixed with the scourings of all the wash-tubs, kennels and common sewers within the bills of mortality.""

http://www.pbs.org/kqed/demonbarber/madding/waterandwaste.html

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: Rainman



IMHO, the creation of the EPA, and setting the general standards as originally intended, definitely played a part in waters being cleaned, yet it was education, awareness and instilling a sense of responsibility for our surroundings by the general population that made the largest impact.



I don't know. Was it strictly voluntary on the part of the general population, or was some part of it due to the threat of "teeth", that federal regulations brought into the picture?

Would everyone, individual and corporate, voluntarily do what was right, or would there always exist those who chose to do what was in their own, best interest, and disregard the impact their actions might have on others?


"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 2014
Posts: 6,080
Likes: 1
Offline
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 6,080
Likes: 1
FWIW I agree in part with both positions. There are lots of individuals that are very environmentally minded and do things like recycle instead of throwing everything into the garbage bound for the landfill. In our neighborhood, there is actually an additional charge from the waste management company for the extra recycling bin pickup but, most folks still recycle.

On the flip side, you have corporate America. They have no conscience. The bottom-line is god. If it is cheaper to dump their waste in a stream, they will if there is no penalty and enforcement. If it is cheaper to send jobs overseas they will. If it is more profitable to stop making fish pellets, they will. Just my 2 cents


[Linked Image]
Be Brave Enough to Suck at Something New!
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
R
RAH Offline
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
R
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
I am certainly not against regulation, but the clean water act was limited to the navigable waters. Right or wrong, that was the law. The legislative branch is responsible for legislation, not the EPA or executive branch. That is what the US Constitution outlines. If someone pollutes these waters, then that is where the "teeth" should come in, not in constructing such a bureaucratic nightmare that conservationist landowners are priced out of improving the conservation value of their own property. Something is very broken.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
S
Ambassador
Lunker
Offline
Ambassador
Lunker
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,979
Likes: 14
I propose that the intent for using the term navigable waters, may have originally intended to portray moving waters. As in a conduit for undesirable substances and species to end up in locations far removed from point of entry.

I'm going to go all in and further submit that all ponds, private property or not, may: leak water, discharge water, connect to other, moving bodies of water. In addition, runoff from private property is just that....runoff. It doesn't stay in one place, and respect property lines. It migrates out, down, whatever. And most likely, encounters other, non-static bodies of water, both above and below ground, and escapes the confines of our boundary fences.

I'm even going to go out on a limb and claim that ALL of our water may be connected in one form or another, and what happens here, with my water on my property, may well affect the water miles away. And there's not an above ground stream on the place.

I'm not saying I agree with everything the EPA is claiming, I'm saying I perceive the original intent for the new rules as being just. I think the ruling needs a whole lot more clarification, and the present incarnation is likely unworkable. I just think the basic reasoning is sound.


"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: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
R
RAH Offline
Lunker
Offline
Lunker
R
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 5,714
Likes: 281
Perhaps the intent of navigable waters was to limit the federal government's jurisdiction to their power over interstate commerce. No need to speculate though.

"Current Regulatory Definition of Waters of the U.S.
40 CFR 230.3(s) The term waters of the United States means (please note: this current definition will be replaced by the definition in the final rule effective 60 days after the final rule publication date): All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;"

http://www2.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule/documents-related-clean-water-rule

Last edited by RAH; 06/07/15 11:24 AM.
Page 2 of 12 1 2 3 4 11 12

Link Copied to Clipboard
Today's Birthdays
Bob Lusk, GaryK, GrizzFan, PhotographerDave
Recent Posts
Happy Birthday Bob Lusk!!
by Rainman - 03/28/24 02:53 AM
Relative weight charts in Excel ? Calculations?
by Mark Dyer - 03/27/24 10:18 PM
Reducing fish biomass
by esshup - 03/27/24 06:17 PM
New 2 acre pond stocking plan
by esshup - 03/27/24 06:05 PM
1 year after stocking question
by esshup - 03/27/24 06:02 PM
Questions and Feedback on SMB
by Donatello - 03/27/24 03:10 PM
Paper-shell crayfish and Japanese snails
by Bill Cody - 03/27/24 10:18 AM
Brooder Shiners and Fry, What to do??
by esshup - 03/27/24 08:47 AM
2024 North Texas Optimal BG food Group Buy
by Dave Davidson1 - 03/27/24 08:15 AM
Dewatering bags seeded to form berms?
by esshup - 03/26/24 10:00 PM
Freeze Danger? - Electric Diaphragm Pump
by esshup - 03/26/24 09:47 PM
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