It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EPA targets couple's private pond in Wyoming, threatens huge fines...

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Where is the freaking Government of the State of Wyoming in all this?
It should be "they" fighting on behalf of their citizens...that jumped through their hoops, paid their fees and took their word & permits as legal authority.
I thought Wyoming was a frontier Mess With One Mess With All kinda state.
...Guess not.




posted on May, 20 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

People often put various chemicals and/or invasive species of fish and plants in there ponds for a number of reasons. Some people put dye in the water to make it look pretty. Some people put different aquatic plants, some of which are very invasive if allowed to escape into other waterways. Some people put certain species of fish in their ponds that have also been determined to be invasive and stringent guidelines must be met prior to their introduction and before approval is granted.



Far as I know the EPA did not allege any of the items above - it did make some hogwash claim that run-off is supposedly going to effect a 100 mile distant waterway with sediments which is just laughable without much thought at all.

So basically you support a position based on what I'll call pre-crime. One that disallows a landowner use of their property by an out of control federal bureaucracy because they MIGHT do something later - excuse me!



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: Flatfish

People often put various chemicals and/or invasive species of fish and plants in there ponds for a number of reasons. Some people put dye in the water to make it look pretty. Some people put different aquatic plants, some of which are very invasive if allowed to escape into other waterways. Some people put certain species of fish in their ponds that have also been determined to be invasive and stringent guidelines must be met prior to their introduction and before approval is granted.



Far as I know the EPA did not allege any of the items above - it did make some hogwash claim that run-off is supposedly going to effect a 100 mile distant waterway with sediments which is just laughable without much thought at all.

So basically you support a position based on what I'll call pre-crime. One that disallows a landowner use of their property by an out of control federal bureaucracy because they MIGHT do something later - excuse me!


Look, I happen to have a pond on my property as well and 20 yrs. ago when I wanted to put triploid carp in it, (a species of carp incapable of reproduction) I had to have my pond inspected by govt. officials to insure that it could not overflow, allowing my carp to escape into other waterways. My brother had to do the same thing for ponds on his property as well an it's nothing new.

This guy just chose to ignore the law and now he's going to pay the price for doing so.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

Look, I happen to have a pond on my property as well and 20 yrs. ago when I wanted to put triploid carp in it, (a species of carp incapable of reproduction) I had to have my pond inspected by govt. officials to insure that it could not overflow, allowing my carp to escape into other waterways. My brother had to do the same thing for ponds on his property as well an it's nothing new.

This guy just chose to ignore the law and now he's going to pay the price for doing so.


Granted, what government authority gave you permission? state fish and game? I doubt you or your brother dealt with the EPA and would be surprised at you outcome if you did.

These folks went to the effort to go through proper channels, received and paid permit fees from their governing authority - an authority the federal EPA is trying to usurp.

Again the EPA in this case has NOT cited the landowner for introduction of invasive species or plant life - they are claiming sediment issues on a river 100 miles away!


edit on 20-5-2014 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: muse7
Just because they "believe" that the EPA is wasting tax dollars investigating their dam, that does not give them a free pass.

They diverted a water way, which obviously requires the approval of the EPA. Ignorance of the law does not give you a free pass.


Guessing you didn't read the article....they didn't divert anything.


The guy dammed up a creek in order to get it to fill his pond. Once the pond gets full, the water continues to flow over his dam and back into the original stream. That's called diversion.


Is there a link to a story anywhere that says he dammed up a creek to fill his pond? I can't find one. What I see is that he filled his pond with clear fresh water....doesn't appear to be anything that says he dammed up a creek to fill it that I can find.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: Flatfish

Look, I happen to have a pond on my property as well and 20 yrs. ago when I wanted to put triploid carp in it, (a species of carp incapable of reproduction) I had to have my pond inspected by govt. officials to insure that it could not overflow, allowing my carp to escape into other waterways. My brother had to do the same thing for ponds on his property as well an it's nothing new.

This guy just chose to ignore the law and now he's going to pay the price for doing so.


Granted, what government authority gave you permission? state fish and game? I doubt you or your brother dealt with the EPA and would be surprised at you outcome if you did.

These folks went to the effort to go through proper channels, received and paid permit fees from their governing authority - an authority the federal EPA is trying to usurp.

Again the EPA in this case has NOT cited the landowner for introduction of invasive species or plant life - they are claiming sediment issues on a river 100 miles away!



You're absolutely right, we didn't have to deal with the EPA. But then none of our ponds have rivers, streams or lakes anywhere in the vicinity either, much less running right through them. We both built independent ponds, drilled water wells and installed windmills to provide them with a water source. Shy of another "Great Flood" as in biblical times, none of our ponds have any chance whatsoever of overflowing into other waterways. But we still had to have them inspected and approved, just the same.

The reason the EPA is concerned with sediments is because of the fact that chemicals, fish eggs and/or plant seeds all get washed away right along with the sediments inviting the potential for downstream contamination.

edit on 20-5-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
The EPA's entire case is predicated on its authority over navigable water ways. In the case here its claiming run-off from a pond 100 miles from a navigable river is going to effect that distant river.

If one buys that as reasonable and plausible then one has to believe...............

Farmer Jones can be fined under the same authority for plowing his field in Texas and the dust settling on any navigable water way in Arkansas no matter the distance causes sediment therefore we fine farmer Jones $100,000 a day until he submits a plowing plan to our satisfaction even though Jones has met all of Texas requirements for agricultural uses on his land.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Flat...what part of this is unclear? THEY HAD ALLPROPER PERMITS TO BUILD WHAT THEY BUILT but the EPA is now trying to say they do not have the proper paperwork.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Vasa Croe



Why are all these federal agencies involved in the land grabs?

What land grabs? If you are referring to the BLM they have grabbed no ones land that land was public land. This guy did divert the water for his pond that is what the dam was for.


If they fine him and take over his land because of bankruptcy I would call that a land grab. I still have not found a story that said he diverted anything via a dam. Sure a dam was built, but that dam could also be what is holding the water from his pond from overflow INTO the creek below. Nothing anywhere about him diverting anything via a dam FROM the creek.

Where else did the water come from? There is no source of water besides the creek. The man should have done his research before building the dam he did some of it but not all of it. If he does file for bankruptcy that doesn't automatically mean they will take his land it would be auctioned off.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix


The EPA's entire case is predicated on its authority over navigable water ways. In the case here its claiming run-off from a pond 100 miles from a navigable river is going to effect that distant river.

Nice way to overlook the waterway that does run through his land that does eventually run into the river. Overflow from his pond would make it back into the waterway. Not to mention he is also screwing over other ranchers that are down stream from him.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

The reason the EPA is concerned with sediments is because of the fact that chemicals, fish eggs and/or plant seeds all get washed away right along with the sediments inviting the potential for downstream contamination.


But that's not what EPA cited them for!!!! The landowners are guilty of pre-crime in your description and debate.

Someone please explain how heavier than water soil sediments are to plausibly travel 100 miles in any quantity that's even measurable and affect a river 100 miles away - it is this claim that EPA bases its authority upon to cite this landowner.

Its not fish eggs, its not chemicals, its not plant seeds or any other made up reason to support what amounts to usurping state authority granting permission and permitting of the stock pond.

That may be the real issue here - usurping a states authority to decide what's right and proper within its jurisdiction.

edit on 20-5-2014 by Phoenix because: sp



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Flatfish

Flat...what part of this is unclear? THEY HAD ALLPROPER PERMITS TO BUILD WHAT THEY BUILT but the EPA is now trying to say they do not have the proper paperwork.


They had all the proper "State Permits" to build what they built but apparently, they hadn't bothered to get the proper approval from federal authorities, which is required any time you divert streams and rivers.

For example; I can go to my state parks & wildlife office and get licensed to become a fishing guide and as far as the state is concerned, I've satisfied their requirements to do so. That license issued by the state in no way negates the fact that in order to legally take paying customers out on a boat, I am also required to attend training classes at a cost of $1,200 and have a captain's license issued by the U.S. Coast Guard, a federal agency tasked with enforcing federal laws governing the industry.

Just because the state says that you've met all their requirements to do something doesn't mean that there aren't other federal laws that must also be conformed to.

Simply put, the guy didn't exercise due diligence when investigating what statutes would apply and what permits would be required when he decided to build his pond and now he has problems. Go figure!



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Phoenix

Nice way to overlook the waterway that does run through his land that does eventually run into the river. Overflow from his pond would make it back into the waterway. Not to mention he is also screwing over other ranchers that are down stream from him.


No, that's the facts of what EPA is claiming!!!! Umm did you even watch the source video? because I don't see any impedance of the creeks flow out of that pond - rather it looks quite substantial - I guess if you stretch one could make that claim on a very temporary basis as the pool filled.

You statist's will go any length to justify an out of control federal government bent on usurping landowners rights - in this case no one can claim malfeasance by the landowner as he did follow his states laws and received full permission to build his stock pond - it very well appears from here that federal EPA wants usurpation of the states authority to grant that permission.




edit on 20-5-2014 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix

Someone please explain how heavier than water soil sediments are to plausibly travel 100 miles in any quantity that's even measurable and affect a river 100 miles away - it is this claim that EPA bases its authority upon to cite this landowner.


Ever heard of the Grand Canyon? Where do you imagine all that dirt, (sediment, once diluted by water) went to when the canyon was formed? I'll just bet it went a lot further than 100 miles downstream.

If you go to the mouth of the Mississippi river, I'd just bet you'd be able to detect sediment that came from over a thousand miles away, much less a hundred. That's why fertilizers and herbicides washed down the river as sediment from origins far to the north, are blamed for the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to the mouth of the Mississippi.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
This little article caught my interest so I did a tiny bit of digging.

Bi ng Maps

The above link will take you to the property in question. Now the imagery is supposed to be current (google maps), but it is actually from 2009 and is before a pond on the property. You can, however, determine where the pond is by looking at the location of the house in the video from the OP. It looks like it was placed between an irrigation ditch that ran just a bit South of his home and the creek. Sixmile Creek is located just off the road. It runs from SW to NE and meets up with Blacks Fork. The green river is to the East. So I can only guess (pretty certain) that it's easterly flowing. Also a quick look puts the travel distance via water at well over 100 miles to the green river. In the video he talked about an irrigation ditch 300 yards away. I looked, and there is nothing else 300 yards away. His house is about 75ft off that ditch and 340ft from the creek itself. It really looks like he is feeding from the creek there and the water is heading back into the creek.

IMO:
I can't speak for the legalities of it but he was approved for all his permits. He did all the necessary things to comply with regulations, so it seems to me the State should be liable for their blundering and he should be reimbursed for all his expenditures.

EDIT: You'll have to click on bird's eye view to see the satellite imagery.
edit on 20-5-2014 by rockn82 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
They diverted a water way, which obviously requires the approval of the EPA.


...and then some. The EPA is only one of the redundant water/wetland agencies.

Here's a serious issue I'm not seeing address, however. A pond is a wetland. I've managed projects that have both created new and impacted existing wetlands and, in my professional experience, destruction of an existing wetland is far more difficult to get permitted. The missing information in this article is that this family, while being ordered by the EPA to backfill the pond, will ultimately have to get an Army Corps of Engineer's 404 permit to destroy the now established wetland, and if this creek flows enough to run a canoe or kayak along, they'll also have to get a Coast Guard navigable waters permit (if it isn't deep enough, they'll need a categorical exclusion agreement from the Coast Guard.)

The EPA is taking the lead here in the article because they're the more public agency and have the name recognition, but the Corps permits are by far a bigger PITA. One of my biggest gripes about "the system" is that you can have one agency order you to do one thing and another agency order you to do the exact opposite, yet federal law dictates that you must satisfy both agencies demands before you move forward. The ACoE could very easily block them from destroying the pond while the EPA continues to fine them for not destroying the pond and this red tape has no realistic solution aside from years of negotiations and letter of intent approvals/revisions.

Finally, and I have no idea if this is the case here, anytime you dam a waterway or create a pond you risk impacting a floodplain. If you do impact a floodplain, you suddenly have brought FEMA into the mix. This leads to yet another permit process to reach an approved Certified Letter of Map Revision (CLoMR)... The CLoMR is preceeded by a DLoMR (draft) and LoMR (the CLoMR before the final edits and approvals from FEMA are obtained.)

Other points: IF they have nesting herons or, GOD FORBID, nesting eagles around the pond as they claim, then they're hosed here unless EPA backs off. They'll have the federal migratory bird laws and raptor laws blocking them from any action while the EPA continues ad-infinitum applying fines for their inaction.

The article makes this sound far to simplified. In reality I fear this family has entered the giant federal agency circle-jerk and is in for a real nasty fight, regardless of whether they leave the pond in or remove it.

^^^THIS^^^ is a greaat example of how asinine the USA has become. The federal regulations and permits are way out of control. Well-meaning people defend the regs and permits as "keeping corporations and developers from raping the land", but really the wealthy corporations and developers have little trouble working around all of these laws and pulling the old #6 Dance on the land anyway. It's state governments and small land owners who actually have to deal with this garbage.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
A guy can't build a pond on his property, but the oil companies can pump just about anything into the ground they want, and want to make it illegal to say what it is that they are putting into the ground. How does that make any sense?



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

Ever heard of the Grand Canyon? Where do you imagine all that dirt, (sediment, once diluted by water) went to when the canyon was formed? I'll just bet it went a lot further than 100 miles downstream.

If you go to the mouth of the Mississippi river, I'd just bet you'd be able to detect sediment that came from over a thousand miles away, much less a hundred. That's why fertilizers and herbicides washed down the river as sediment from origins far to the north, are blamed for the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to the mouth of the Mississippi.


You deflected by using examples you know are incomparable, lets try that again with a flow something like 2 or 3 cubic feet a second - now tell me ANY soil sediment at that flow rate will make it 100 miles and measurably impact the Green River - ya can't!! and neither can the EPA in any fashion that'll hold up in court.

The streams water entering the pond slows down and drops sediment from upstream, this guy is helping downstream matters rather than hurting them as is contended.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Beat me to it.

These folks probably thought they were doing the right thing by going through their state agencies. Unfortunately, there are so many layers and overlap of federal bureaucracy, who is supposed to be an expert on any of that? Those agencies cannot even agree amongst themselves.

Only wealthy interests can afford to pay legal teams to navigate the cess pool. When that doesn't work, fines just become a cost of doing business.

Some on this thread are confusing care of the environment with what the EPA does. I wonder how the EPA even found out about this?



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
They are in violation of the law, what makes anyone think that they should be above the law?

Does it suck for them, yes it does. But if you start messing with diverting streams, creeks, or rivers...you better be sure you have permission from all agencies...not just your state agencies.

This is the EPAs job, and I'm glad they are on top of it.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join