Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations EPA Power grab, gone!

Since we're all animals, given satisfaction of basic needs of air, food, water and temperature control, libido is next in line. Same for all species. Having satisfied that drive some of the beavers decide that they're much smarter than other beavers and try to tell them what they can, can't and must do with their ponds - or else. So the majority of beavers choose a big beaver named Trumpet who tells the "smarter" beavers to lump it. The "smarter" beavers don't like that at all, but, as the cows say, the point is "moooot".

I can't honestly say I'm afraid of too much, but I'm cautious of two things. Excessive money, and insufficient intelligence. I have noticed in my 50 years on this planet, that either one will often cause problems. Now, I see a disturbing trend whereby we've started combining those two attributes into one individual, one corporation, even one leadership. Fortunately, nothing is permanent.

One thing is clear. The EPA thinks it should control water from its source as raindrops to its entry into the oceans as well as everything (land) its touches or affects. It is a public vs private ownership matter. Outside of illegal dumping (covered by other laws) the issue of ownership is and was covered by common law with set principals and legal rights. EPA destroyed those laws and the rights of many with its actions on WOTUS. The constitutional principal is clear. Its called the 5th adm. to the US constitution and provides if the government wants to take away private rights it can do so for a public purpose only if it pays compensation. There is the hang up. EPA wants to take/control private rights with out paying compensation. The gov needs to be honest (you talk about power and big $). If water is important enough for the gov to control then it should raise taxes on everyone and pay the compensation due to the landowner's property that is being taken. The cost should be a shared burden on all not one taken/imposed from certain landowners. Only when people have to pay for what they get do they decided how important a matter becomes. Something tells me that people will not pay more in taxes so the EPA can tell Charlie he cant dig postholes for his fence.

Tell me ewest, how did the EPA know/come to be involved with Charlie's postholes?

Probably a neighbor.

A local conservation agent told me anytime a dozer is seen working within a quarter mile of a creek he can expect to get a call. He says there is rarely a problem, but when someone calls in with a complaint they are required to check it out. Anyone with google earth can be a self appointed environmental activist.

If you have good and reasonable locals, it probably stops there. But if it is sent higher up the chain, corps or EPA, the troubles could compound if you happen to be the unlucky one who gets over zealous agents or someone trying to work their way up the government food chain.

I suspect ewest is limited in what he can say about any individual case.

And ewest, thanks for defending the Constitution. I happen to think the people who are responsible for creating this Republic put a lot of thought into it based on all the problems they witnessed with other forms of tyranical government. It has stood the test of time, despite repeated attemps to minimze it.

And what might that statement from the CO that snrub references, tell us...possibly that more and more folks are becoming aware of the environment, and conscious of how humans interact in it. Therein lies the future, me thinks. Times are changing, setbacks happen, but the inevitable still occurs. Interesting times.

Unfortunately most governments over time do turn into tyranies. That is why historically governments do not last forever.

The framers of the constitution were very aware of this problem, considering the new country had just declared independence from one. From what I read, the original signing was questionable that it was going to happen because many did not feel it limited the federal government enough. It was signed only with the understanding that the limitation of powers would be revisited. That revisit was what amounted to the very first set of ammendments, or what we know of as the bill of rights.

They wanted the power of the federal strictly limited because they knew first hand from many historic failures of governments that government tyrany eventually leads to revolutions. That is why they specifically left most of the power to the states, where state legislators were closer and represented more closely the people that they governed.

I would agree that the world we live in today with mutlinational corporations is somewhat different. But there are plenty of laws on the books to address those problems already, even if those laws have been ignored for too long (specifically anti-trust laws among others).

Power and control of all air, water and property. Fortunately, even if temporary until congress acts, with Trumpet ans Screwitt in place, all moooooot. Even for self-recognized geniuses. Or is it genii?

A handsome young lawyer named Screwitt,
Saw the job and he knew how to do it.
Though concerned with one note,
On the air it did float,
As he picked up his trumpet and blew it:
MOOOOOOOOT!

Ya just gotta love that cowspeak. True and clear: MOOOOOOOT

Just because one person does not do, or like, what another does, in no way entitles the "offended" party to force their views onto another when it comes to private property rights. If you do not like a neighbor clearing a field, or lighting what they choose, and if their actions are legal, the offended party needs to build a wall, buy better curtains, or move, if they are so "offended". Far too many these days feel their personal rights and opinions make all other's differing rights and opinions "offensive" and illegal. There are long established laws and precedents on what constitutes trespass by one property owner that is affecting another, and I don't think simply disliking what others do is rising to the level of trespass.....there has to be a quantifiable damage done. The EPA vastly overreached, SCOTUS, Congress, and a majority of citizens agreed.

Temporary after Congress acts, also. Once the majority mindset changes, laws follow suit shortly thereafter.

Rex, it's the part about being legal I'm in agreement with you about. I would not hold my neighbors at fault just because they had different ideas than I did. But when there are existing laws that govern such different opinions, there needs to be a body that defines"
Quantifiable".

That's kind of the whole problem.

More Regulation Madness


.

Has anyone seen/read that 'letter' from a guy to the gov't where he blames beavers for damning up a creek?

A funny piece of writing there.

Picture perfect example of what I've been talking about. the majority opinion here seems to be one of "let the states handle things, not the fed government. The EPA has no business meddling in state affairs. The constitution has provision for state's rights. If you don't like your state's regs, move."

Well guess what...from reading the article, it isn't the EPA that is in conflict with this family, it is their state. And the law that is at the crux of all the hardship, was passed in 1975. These folks acknowledge owning the land since 1967, so they were surely aware of what its passage might hold for the future. Not a peep for 42 years, now they're all up in arms over the law, crying foul.

And since they received no satisfaction at the state level, what did they do? They took their case to the Supreme Court, that's what. How about that...differing levels of government, moving up the chain, letting the system work as intended.

Thanks to Tbar for posting the link.

yes and can't wait until "you know who" appoints
a bunch of "Baby Scalia's" over the next 4-8 years

I admire your optimism!

Why not?....looking at ages I see at a minimum 2 Supreme Court appointments in just the first term and possibly as many as 4 in the first term.

Name - Age
John Roberts 62
Anthony Kennedy 80 years old
Clarence Thomas 68
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 83 years old
Stephen Breyer 78 years old
Samuel Alito 66 years old
Sonia Sotomayor 62 years old
Elena Kagan 56 years old

Neil Gorsuch 49 years old - Nominated

It's not the potential for appointees that will be the problem. I believe it will be the staying power of the appointer.

I'm out for awhile, family time, and I imagine this thread is wearing on some nerves. Have a great weekend all!

Oh yeah, go fishing....it's good for you.

Talk to Jeb, Hillary, and the UniPartyGlobalist media about his staying power...who all called him "not a chance".

And Pence would undoubtedly appoint Baby Scalia's too.

Have a good weekend Sparky.

The real problem is not the office, title or who is in it. The real problem is Law that is a compromise is often flawed from the start. There is a right thing to do, but often times it is just too hard for politicians to do. We need real leadership not politicians. There are "true Believers" on all sides. Their position often only reviews the facts that benefit their argument. We spend way too much time talking and not enough time listening.

Wisdom, Fortitude, and the ability to do the right thing rarely rest at the same desk. But when it does, it is magical.

I'd love to go fishing with my family right now, but I need to go flying.

I post this before, but it's gone now:

STATE OF MICHIGAN

Reply to:
GRAND RAPIDS DISTRICT OFFICE
STATE OFFICE BUILDING 6TH FLOOR
350 OTTAWA NW
GRAND RAPIDS MI 49503-2341

JOHN ENGLER, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
HOLLISTER BUILDING, PO BOX 30473, LANSING MI 48909-7973
INTERNET: http://www.deq.state.mi us
RUSSELL J. HARDING, Director

December 17, 1997

CERTIFIED

Mr. Ryan DeVries
2088 Dagget
Pierson, MI 49339

Dear Mr. DeVries:

SUBJECT: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023-1 T11N, R10W, Sec. 20, Montcalm County

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:

Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files show that no permits have been issued.

Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301,. Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated. The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris dams and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all unauthorized activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the strewn channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 1998. Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request, or any further unauthorized activity on the site, may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter.

Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

David L. Price
District Representative
Land and Water Management Division
616-356-0269

dlp:bjc

cc: LWMD, Lansing
MontcaImCEA
Pierson Township
Lieutenant Mary C. Sherzer, DNR LED

------------------------------------------

Reply:

1/6/98

David L. Price
District Representative
Land and Water Management Division
Grand Rapids District Office
State Office Bldg., 6th Floor
350 Ottawa, N.W.
Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2341

Dear Mr. Price:

Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N, R10W, Sec 20; Montcalm County

Your certified letter dated 12/17/97 has been handed to me to respond to. You sent out a great deal of carbon copies to a lot of people, but you neglected to include their addresses. You will, therefore, have to send them a copy of my response.

First of all, Mr. Ryan DeVries is not the legal landowner and/or contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan — I am the legal owner and a couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, nor authorize their dam project, I think they would be highly offended you call their skillful use of natural building materials "debris". I would like to challenge you to attempt to emulate their dam project any dam time and/or any dam place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no dam way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.

As to your dam request the beavers first must fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity, my first dam question to you is: are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers or do you require all dam beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, please send me completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated.

My first concern is — aren't the dam beavers entitled to dam legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said dam representation — so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing dam flooding is proof we should leave the dam Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling their dam names. If you want the dam stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition — contact the dam beavers — but if you are going to arrest them (they obviously did not pay any dam attention to your dam letter — being unable to read English) — be sure you read them their dam Miranda first.

As for me, I am not going to cause more dam flooding or dam debris jams by interfering with these dam builders. If you want to hurt these dam beavers — be aware I am sending a copy of your dam letter and this response to PETA. If your dam Department seriously finds all dams of this nature inherently hazardous and truly will not permit their existence in this dam State — I seriously hope you are not selectively enforcing this dam policy — or once again both I and the Spring Pond Beavers will scream prejudice!

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their dam unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam right than I to live and enjoy Spring Pond. So, as far as I and the beavers are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more dam elevated enforcement action now. Why wait until 1/31/98? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then, and there will be no dam way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then. In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real environmental quality (health) problem; bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the dam beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!)

Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.

Sincerely,

Stephen L. Tvedten

Uhm, for those confused, this is an argument for States rights and not against them. The 5th Amendment is being used, and rightly so, since technically all the Amendments are incorporated under the 14th Amendment. The argument that some want, having a higher power to go to other than the State, is actually being satisfied here as per the Constitution. This is how the Constitution works, you follow it, you observe it, you honor it, and then you might have a Republic you can keep.

This notion that there should always be a "higher power" to go to for satisfaction is circular. Who does one go to, if you don't have a Constitution, after the Supreme Court? Does one count on the epa? If you don't like the epa do you then go to a world court? What then a Universe court? That argument makes absolutely no sense.

We have a Constitution and it is perfect in that if you don't try and bastardize it, it works. It is also perfect in that a very simple instruction manual came with it for those who want to change it. That manual doesn't have a provision for the soup of the day "I'm in the mood for the epa" law. You have to make your case, gather the votes, and get it done right. This hasn't really been done properly since prohibition and then again by removing prohibition.

For a bunch of guys 200 some odd years ago, they were pretty darn smart.

Sunil that is greatness!
Ha Ha...thanks for posting.

Sure snrub. Charlie (fictitious name to protect the innocent)owned a simple 3 bedroom house in a subdivision bordering a bayou. He wanted to build a fence across the back of his yard. Because it was near a wetland (bayou ) it had hydric soil. He dug postholes (dredge and fill material)to put up the fence. EPA told him no. You can guess the rest. Check on Section 404 permits, wetlands determination - hydric soils or dredge and fill material. Also a source is EPA abuse.

Legal history.

Our founders at risk of life made a Declaration of Independence.
the concept set the basis for our constitution.

Here is the idea - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government....

The Constitution picks up this declaration and provides a Bill of Rights that guarantees each individual with rights "unalienable rights endowed by their Creator ". As these rights are a gift from the creator these rights can not be taken away by a majority vote ,the Pres , Congress or anyone else. They are the cornerstone to freedom.