Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property

page: 3
37
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   

ColeYounger
Funny how it's no big deal when an energy company builds a 'wind farm', spanning 90 acres, with fifty 100-foot tall propellor turbines, but when a guy digs one little pond, the EPA throws a hissy fit.


He didn't "dig a pond", he built a dam. Big difference. All that "crystal clear water" he filled it with, he diverted from going somewhere else, he didn't buy it like people who fill their swimming pools.

ftfa:


The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.
edit on 29America/ChicagopmAmerica/Chicago74 by seaez because: spelling




posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Metallicus
 


They have done the same thing here, you are not allowed to dam a "waterway", but they have not defined what a waterway is. Is the rut in my driveway that flows with water in a heavy rain a waterway? Might be.

The other side of the coin is this: if the EPA wants to control all waterways, then they are responsible for controlling the damage they do, if it floods on to your property then they should responsible for fixing it. But what they do then is declare more and more land as a flood area and prohibit you from building on it or fencing it - thus taking a lot of good land out of production and making housing even more unaffordable.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Metallicus
 


So what are you going to do about it?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   

BritofTexas

Goldcurrent
reply to post by Metallicus
 

Correct me if I'm wrong but It doesn't state in the article whether the owner has actually built a dam or diverted a downstream creek for this pond or not.
I understand the rage of the owner if his pond is entirely man-made and is not diverting water from going downstream, but in my parts, there are huge legal battles between farmers when one decides to dam water on his property for his livestock alone...


You are correct.

He has built a dam across the creek to build his pond. Thereby keeping water from the land owners down stream.

The land owners down stream though did not go running to Fox to get their face on TV.

He gets the "poor me", "victim" celebrity status. The land owners down stream get........No Water.

But it's far more fun to blame the "GUBMINT" than think rationally.


The creek continuously flows does it not? So where is all that water magically disappearing to?

Does it not seem likely to you that the pond will fill and then the excess water will flow out of it over a spillway or drain pipe back to the creek and down stream?

This goes on all over the place where I live. The water doesn't just disappear into an infinite pond. Once the pond fills, maybe a day at most, the stream will continue with the same amount flowing through it as before ...

As long as the creek is not being polluted and the water is returned to the creek before it leaves the property no one will be left waterless down stream ...

Think people, think!!

edit: diverting water - temporarily (meaning its flow is returned) - to retain it on land for agricultural use is a fantastic idea - look up permaculture (sustainable agriculture) they do it all the time ...
edit on 3/17/14 by SherlockH because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   

SherlockH
As long as the creek is not being polluted and the water is returned to the creek before it leaves the property no one will be left waterless down stream ...

Think people, think!!


It would seem that he is indeed polluting the Creek downstream...

Further, the EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other waterways.

OPs Source

Please make sure to take your own advice before invoking it in others.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Metallicus
 


Our government is getting out of control! Hmm!
How do you think it got that way?
It got that way because we the people have failed
to hold it accountable for the actions of those we had
elected into office! It's been this way for over a century
already! The thing is, it has progressively become worse off
over the decades! This should be what the word progressive
means! Because as far as political spectrum is concerned it
doesn't mean Progress!

We are the only hope for our future.
Only by the hand of the people united for
the common good can we have the power
to usurp the crony oligarchs!
edit on 17-3-2014 by nosacrificenofreedom because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
real facts are boring

Its always way more fun to just blame the damn gubmint!



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   

SherlockH

Does it not seem likely to you that the pond will fill and then the excess water will flow out of it over a spillway or drain pipe back to the creek and down stream?


You've probably nailed the actual problem there

IE the construction of the dam/spillway/dewatering facility needs to be up to a defined standard. If he's simply bulldozed dirt & rocks into the creek to divert water into his pond then chances are pretty good it doesn't comply with minimum requirements which makes failure of the dam during a prolonged period of high inflows very possible. Those minimum standards of construction have been learned from experience of past failures. I'd wager that constructing his dam/pond etc to comply with the standards would make the project too expensive to even consider building it for private use.

I'm thinking of a dam + spillway capable of surviving a theoretical one in 1000 year flood event. I'm sure the EPA/military engineers will have a theoretical figure in mind for that.
edit on 18/3/2014 by Pilgrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   

BritofTexas

Goldcurrent
reply to post by Metallicus
 

Correct me if I'm wrong but It doesn't state in the article whether the owner has actually built a dam or diverted a downstream creek for this pond or not.
I understand the rage of the owner if his pond is entirely man-made and is not diverting water from going downstream, but in my parts, there are huge legal battles between farmers when one decides to dam water on his property for his livestock alone...


You are correct.

He has built a dam across the creek to build his pond. Thereby keeping water from the land owners down stream.

The land owners down stream though did not go running to Fox to get their face on TV.

He gets the "poor me", "victim" celebrity status. The land owners down stream get........No Water.

But it's far more fun to blame the "GUBMINT" than think rationally.


You do realize that once the pond fills up the water spills over the dam and continues to go downstream, right? There are many, many dams throughout the world--many in the UK too--that are built to create things like stock ponds and power and the water continues down the river just like it did before.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   

BritofTexas

SherlockH
As long as the creek is not being polluted and the water is returned to the creek before it leaves the property no one will be left waterless down stream ...

Think people, think!!


It would seem that he is indeed polluting the Creek downstream...

Further, the EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other waterways.

OPs Source

Please make sure to take your own advice before invoking it in others.


So first you say that the guy was wrong because the people downstream were getting no water and then when educated on that you now say it is because of pollution? What pollutants? Is there actually a real pollution problem or did the EPA just pull that out for justification?

This is actually quite a common issue with the bureaucrats in the EPA. If you have a piece of land that is under water 1 day of the year, they call it a "wetland" and forbid you from farming it.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Metallicus

jhn7537
reply to post by Metallicus
 


Those fines don't seem excessive at all......


No kidding.

$75 a day is too much...never mind the additional 3 zeroes.

The EPA is crazy and so is this Government.
edit on 2014/3/14 by Metallicus because: Sp


it's from FOX, which automatically means there is more to the story, as I've found out countless times before.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Metallicus

I find this disgusting that a man can't build a pond on his own property without being threatened by the EPA. Our Government is getting totally out of control.


Sorry but you have to have some kind of control or people would build what they want and that could cause real problems, It seems although he could put in the effort to build it he couldn't be bothered to find out the permissions required to do it.

I am sure his wife and kids will be really happy if he fights this and they end up on the street!



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   

BritofTexas

SherlockH
As long as the creek is not being polluted and the water is returned to the creek before it leaves the property no one will be left waterless down stream ...

Think people, think!!


It would seem that he is indeed polluting the Creek downstream...

Further, the EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other waterways.

OPs Source

Please make sure to take your own advice before invoking it in others.


I'm thinking that you are a urban dweller, where food magically appears in stores and there are many venues of entertainment.

Please tell me how he is polluting other waterways? When the water he is getting for his pond comes from and is returned to those very same waterways?

It's a pond! Not a lake. Nor has the waterway been diverted.

City folk and their utter lack of common sense drive me wild sometimes.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   

BritofTexas

SherlockH
As long as the creek is not being polluted and the water is returned to the creek before it leaves the property no one will be left waterless down stream ...

Think people, think!!


It would seem that he is indeed polluting the Creek downstream...

Further, the EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other waterways.

OPs Source

Please make sure to take your own advice before invoking it in others.


Yeah the "think, people think" was in context of my entire post which was in the context of the post I was responding to ...

context is everything.

My point mainly being that the water does not simply vanish and become "no water" for those down stream. The point you conveniently overlooked in your response.

And no, I didn't read the article ... which by the way has nothing to do with thinking and a great deal more to do with time ...

All that being said I realize, even if I didn't read the article, that its a necessity that the water be returned to the stream in an unpolluted state (which was why I mentioned it in the post you cherry picked). To guarantee this some sort of oversight is required to make sure people do not abuse streams and creeks that flow through their property.

If done properly there is no reason someone could not use a stream passing through their property ... again I see this happening all over the countryside where I live ...

---

So I'll put it to you directly, since you seemed to have missed the point of my post ..

Do you realize now that a stream dammed up still continues to flow past the dam in some fashion, once the reservoir is full, the way a cup overflows in a sink when filling continuously from a faucet? That, unless diverted to a completely different waterway, the people down stream will have water? That the statement "The land owners down stream get........No Water" is not true?

edit on 3/19/14 by SherlockH because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Once again a lot of the good posters of ATS have jumped on the Right Wing Rag bandwagon and not not bothered to find the whole story. One even claims they do not have to read the OPs original because they "Think".

A couple of minutes search located a PDF of the complaint by the EPA.

The Letter dated January 30th 2014 can be found and downloaded HERE

A couple of points for clarification.


In a letter to you dated May 22, 2013, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicated that you may have violated section 301 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1311, by discharging dredged and fi.ll material into Six Mile Creek without authorization by a CW A permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The EPA's letter invited you to submit, within 21 days of receipt of the letter, information that you believe demonstrates that the EPA's description ofthe work on Six Mile Creek was incorrect or that the activities did not constitute a violation of the CW A. The letter also asked you to inform the EPA within 21 calendar days of receipt of the letter if you were interested in negotiating the terms of an administrative order on consent (AOC) under which you would take steps to come into compliance with the CW A. The EPA did not receive any response from you to the May 22, 2013 , letter.



On September 5, 2012, the Corps contacted Mr. Johnson by telephone to inquire about the darn constmction activities at the Site and authorization for the work. The Corps also informed Respondent of the Corps' CWA regulatory authority and requested that Respondent send information about the dam construction project to the Corps. The Corps did not receive any such information from Respondent following that telephone conversation.

This has been going on since September 2012. Johnson has ignored them for 18 months. It should come as no surprise that he is now being fined for non-compliance.




On October 11,2012, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted an inspection of the Site and confirmed that Respondent or persons acting on his behalf had discharged or allowed the discharge of approximately 12 cubic yards of dredged and fill material below the ordinary high water mark of Six Mile Creek during construction of a darn. The work resulted in filling an approximately 40-foot reach of the creek and inundation of an approximately 745~foot reach. .



12 cubic yards of dredged and fill material to build his dam. For reference this dumpster holds 12 cubic yards.


His "Stock Pond" reaches 745 feet. Thats....

  • About three-fourths the length of the QE2.
  • About two times the length of a Football field.
  • About three-and-a-half times the length of the Wingspan of a 747


While his "Pond" Lake was filling, what happened to the water needs of the Landowners downstream?

But please, carry on Hero worshiping this self entitled moron who has no regard for his neighbors.

As they say around these parts, "Bless Your Hearts"



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   

BritofTexas
Once again a lot of the good posters of ATS have jumped on the Right Wing Rag bandwagon and not not bothered to find the whole story. One even claims they do not have to read the OPs original because they "Think".

A couple of minutes search located a PDF of the complaint by the EPA.

The Letter dated January 30th 2014 can be found and downloaded HERE

A couple of points for clarification.


In a letter to you dated May 22, 2013, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicated that you may have violated section 301 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1311, by discharging dredged and fi.ll material into Six Mile Creek without authorization by a CW A permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The EPA's letter invited you to submit, within 21 days of receipt of the letter, information that you believe demonstrates that the EPA's description ofthe work on Six Mile Creek was incorrect or that the activities did not constitute a violation of the CW A. The letter also asked you to inform the EPA within 21 calendar days of receipt of the letter if you were interested in negotiating the terms of an administrative order on consent (AOC) under which you would take steps to come into compliance with the CW A. The EPA did not receive any response from you to the May 22, 2013 , letter.



On September 5, 2012, the Corps contacted Mr. Johnson by telephone to inquire about the darn constmction activities at the Site and authorization for the work. The Corps also informed Respondent of the Corps' CWA regulatory authority and requested that Respondent send information about the dam construction project to the Corps. The Corps did not receive any such information from Respondent following that telephone conversation.

This has been going on since September 2012. Johnson has ignored them for 18 months. It should come as no surprise that he is now being fined for non-compliance.




On October 11,2012, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted an inspection of the Site and confirmed that Respondent or persons acting on his behalf had discharged or allowed the discharge of approximately 12 cubic yards of dredged and fill material below the ordinary high water mark of Six Mile Creek during construction of a darn. The work resulted in filling an approximately 40-foot reach of the creek and inundation of an approximately 745~foot reach. .



12 cubic yards of dredged and fill material to build his dam. For reference this dumpster holds 12 cubic yards.


His "Stock Pond" reaches 745 feet. Thats....

  • About three-fourths the length of the QE2.
  • About two times the length of a Football field.
  • About three-and-a-half times the length of the Wingspan of a 747


While his "Pond" Lake was filling, what happened to the water needs of the Landowners downstream?

But please, carry on Hero worshiping this self entitled moron who has no regard for his neighbors.

As they say around these parts, "Bless Your Hearts"


That sounds like a really nice pond. I've seen even bigger ones on creeks around here ... the water fowl around here love them.

And I don't know if he employed such a method but the pond could be filled while pumping "some" of the water on down stream so it doesn't go completely dry even while the pond is being filled. Are you sure the water completely stopped? If so, how long was it stopped for? If so, did his neighbors know about it or did they even mind?

Personally I think you haven't thought it through very much even from the beginning and decided you would engage in government worship. Nothing you posted showed any complaint by neighbors ...
edit on 3/19/14 by SherlockH because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
37
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join