Judge blocks new federal rule on jurisdiction of waterways

Deuce said:

It does if you build a dam to do it.

Click to expand...

A person has to return the flow of the stream by law. They can take some of the water but they can't block the flow or neighbors and the county will have them in court. When the pond is full the flow goes to normal.

jimbo said:

That's the problem. The water could go anywhere, on the crops, into the aquifer, your cattle could take a dump in it, polluting it downstream. Western ranchers early on would divert water around someone else's land, particularly homesteaders, to drive them off.

You can't do things on your property that negatively affects other users downstream. That's the purpose of the permit approvals. According to the article, the permits were in place.

Click to expand...

Where is the proof that hes affecting anyone? Where is his due process right?

NonoBadDog said:

EPA has a different agenda than counties or states. If the guy didn't have his ducks in a row county code enforcement would have taken him to court and then they would have sent the Sheriff in to deal with the situation.

Click to expand...

Counties enforce county law, not federal law.

What is this "different agenda" you refer to?

NonoBadDog said:

A person has to return the flow of the stream by law. They can take some of the water but they can't block the flow or neighbors and the county will have them in court. When the pond is full the flow goes to normal.

Click to expand...

Normal flow, plus whatever cow **** and diesel he's put into it.

Deuce said:

Counties enforce county law, not federal law.

What is this "different agenda" you refer to?

Click to expand...

The county's agenda is to enforce water control so that it is fair for everyone. One issue is health standards so that one person doesn't pollute the wells of their neighbors. We have a neighbor that has been living without septic for 8 years. We (several neighbors) filed a complaint with the county code enforcement office. The issue is that her feces is not collected and treated. If she just dumps on the ground or in a hole it pollutes the water in the wells around her.

Another example of what the county does is the neighbor across the road from us has a lake with a stream. The county insures that the flow is not interrupted because we have ranchers down stream that use that water for irrigation and cattle. If our neighbors were to cut the flow of that stream it would hurt a lot of people that use that water to make a living. The EPA wants to control that now. They don't want to have day to day control, they just want the authority to come in after the fact and totally control the situation without having any knowledge or consideration of how their decisions effect the state or the county.

Another example. Nobody up here says a word if they see a bald eagle. If they do the EPA could come in and restrict building and stop the use of all of the water up here because it the EPA would designate the area as a habitat for an endangered species. That would devastate the area. We ahve the same fights with BLM. It is hard to keep up with which agency is trying to do the most damage sometimes.

jimbo said:

That's the problem. The water could go anywhere, on the crops, into the aquifer, your cattle could take a dump in it, polluting it downstream. Western ranchers early on would divert water around someone else's land, particularly homesteaders, to drive them off.

You can't do things on your property that negatively affects other users downstream. That's the purpose of the permit approvals. According to the article, the permits were in place.

Click to expand...

People can't use water that they don't have the rights to. If they don't own the water shares they get hammered for it.

Deuce said:

Normal flow, plus whatever cow **** and diesel he's put into it.

Click to expand...

Where did you get "diesel" at? Really? You think people just pour diesel in the water? Now you are just making **** up. You don't have a clue when it comes to water in the west and it shows.

NonoBadDog said:

The county's agenda is to enforce water control so that it is fair for everyone. One issue is health standards so that one person doesn't pollute the wells of their neighbors. We have a neighbor that has been living without septic for 8 years. We (several neighbors) filed a complaint with the county code enforcement office. The issue is that her feces is not collected and treated. If she just dumps on the ground or in a hole it pollutes the water in the wells around her.

Another example of what the county does is the neighbor across the road from us has a lake with a stream. The county insures that the flow is not interrupted because we have ranchers down stream that use that water for irrigation and cattle. If our neighbors were to cut the flow of that stream it would hurt a lot of people that use that water to make a living. The EPA wants to control that now. They don't want to have day to day control, they just want the authority to come in after the fact and totally control the situation without having any knowledge or consideration of how their decisions effect the state or the county.

Another example. Nobody up here says a word if they see a bald eagle. If they do the EPA could come in and restrict building and stop the use of all of the water up here because it the EPA would designate the area as a habitat for an endangered species. That would devastate the area. We ahve the same fights with BLM. It is hard to keep up with which agency is trying to do the most damage sometimes.

Click to expand...

But what is the EPA's agenda. What do they want to do.

NonoBadDog said:

Where did you get "diesel" at? Really? You think people just pour diesel in the water? Now you are just making **** up. You don't have a clue when it comes to water in the west and it shows.

Click to expand...

You think a bucket is the only way things get into water supplies? How droll.

jonny5 said:

Where is the proof that hes affecting anyone? Where is his due process right?

Click to expand...

I don't recall stating that there is any proof. I responded to a specific question, the one I quoted.

I'm not an EPA fan. I think they overstep their mission, and they do it retroactively. The back third of my own property is now a wetlands. It wasn't when I moved in in 1992. But the EPA expanded the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

In this case, I believe that's what happened.

Deuce said:

But what is the EPA's agenda. What do they want to do.

Click to expand...

Look it up. They want to have control over states rights as far as water is concerned. That is why the judge ruled the way he did. It would do irreparable harm to the states that are involved in the suit. It would remove any control that any state would have over any water in that state. The EPA has tried to claim legal rights to control water rights for ski resorts, streams that ranchers use for water for cattle, recreational purposes without regard as to how it would effect the state and their economy.

Deuce said:

You think a bucket is the only way things get into water supplies? How droll.

Click to expand...

This only shows your lack of knowledge where it comes to how rural people value their water. Water and water purity is a big thing here since it effects everything form wildlife, ranching, water wells, fishing, the local economy.

NonoBadDog said:

The county's agenda is to enforce water control so that it is fair for everyone. One issue is health standards so that one person doesn't pollute the wells of their neighbors. We have a neighbor that has been living without septic for 8 years. We (several neighbors) filed a complaint with the county code enforcement office. The issue is that her feces is not collected and treated. If she just dumps on the ground or in a hole it pollutes the water in the wells around her.

Another example of what the county does is the neighbor across the road from us has a lake with a stream. The county insures that the flow is not interrupted because we have ranchers down stream that use that water for irrigation and cattle. If our neighbors were to cut the flow of that stream it would hurt a lot of people that use that water to make a living. The EPA wants to control that now. They don't want to have day to day control, they just want the authority to come in after the fact and totally control the situation without having any knowledge or consideration of how their decisions effect the state or the county.

Another example. Nobody up here says a word if they see a bald eagle. If they do the EPA could come in and restrict building and stop the use of all of the water up here because it the EPA would designate the area as a habitat for an endangered species. That would devastate the area. We ahve the same fights with BLM. It is hard to keep up with which agency is trying to do the most damage sometimes.

Click to expand...

Well said.

NonoBadDog said:

Look it up. They want to have control over states rights as far as water is concerned. That is why the judge ruled the way he did. It would do irreparable harm to the states that are involved in the suit. It would remove any control that any state would have over any water in that state. The EPA has tried to claim legal rights to control water rights for ski resorts, streams that ranchers use for water for cattle, recreational purposes without regard as to how it would effect the state and their economy.

Click to expand...

Control to do what?

NonoBadDog said:

Where did you get "diesel" at? Really? You think people just pour diesel in the water? Now you are just making **** up. You don't have a clue when it comes to water in the west and it shows.

Click to expand...

And you don't think they do? Where have you been hiding?

People have been using the waterways as a private dump for centuries. 50 years ago, Allied Chemical dumped Kepone tailings in the James at Hopewell, Va, polluting the James. When it appeared that they would be caught, they sold the Kepone plant to a couple of executives who continued business as usual. That's just one local incident of which I am aware.

The problem with the EPA is not that they are needed. They are. But that like any government agency, they have expanded their power way beyond what is necessary. Retroactively redlining areas after approval is just one tactic. That may be the case here. Blanket redlining like they did with watersheds, then demanding compliance is another.

NonoBadDog said:

This only shows your lack of knowledge where it comes to how rural people value their water. Water and water purity is a big thing here since it effects everything form wildlife, ranching, water wells, fishing, the local economy.

Click to expand...

You brought up "pouring," as if intentionally polluting your own water supply is what I was talking about.

Deuce said:

Control to do what?

Click to expand...

Okay, your questions are just getting ridiculous. Google it. I don't have time to educate you on every less than intelligent question you want to dream up just to be irritating.

NonoBadDog said:

Okay, your questions are just getting ridiculous. Google it. I don't have time to educate you on every less than intelligent question you want to dream up just to be irritating.

Click to expand...

I did. They want to protect the environment for future generations. Is that what you're opposing?

jimbo said:

And you don't think they do? Where have you been hiding?

People have been using the waterways as a private dump for centuries. 50 years ago, Allied Chemical dumped Kepone tailings in the James at Hopewell, Va, polluting the James. When it appeared that they would be caught, they sold the Kepone plant to a couple of executives who continued business as usual. That's just one local incident of which I am aware.

The problem with the EPA is not that they are needed. They are. But that like any government agency, they have expanded their power way beyond what is necessary. Retroactively redlining areas after approval is just one tactic. That may be the case here. Blanket redlining like they did with watersheds, then demanding compliance is another.

Click to expand...

Define "people". Is the EPA people? I don't argue the fact and have never said that we don't need the EPA. I am saying they should not have as much control as they want or have. This is the kind of stupid **** the EPA does when you let them do something that they have no idea about. They don't care or know about the local issues like the local govt. They ignored the local govt and experts that told them not to do this the way they did it and they did it anyway. Now this is what we have here.

EPA Says It Underestimated Water Buildup in Colorado Mine That Led to Spill - WSJ
EPA withholds mine spill documents from Congress - Watchdog.org
EPA withholds mine spill documents from Congress | Fox News
http://www.newsweek.com/epa-causes-...llion-gallons-mining-waste-turns-river-361019
Pollution flowing faster than facts in EPA spill - CNN.com

Deuce said:

I did. They want to protect the environment for future generations. Is that what you're opposing?

Click to expand...

I already stated that in a previous post.

NonoBadDog said:

Define "people". Is the EPA people? I don't argue the fact and have never said that we don't need the EPA. I am saying they should not have as much control as they want or have. This is the kind of stupid **** the EPA does when you let them do something that they have no idea about. They don't care or know about the local issues like the local govt. They ignored the local govt and experts that told them not to do this the way they did it and they did it anyway. Now this is what we have here.

EPA Says It Underestimated Water Buildup in Colorado Mine That Led to Spill - WSJ
EPA withholds mine spill documents from Congress - Watchdog.org
EPA withholds mine spill documents from Congress | Fox News
http://www.newsweek.com/epa-causes-...llion-gallons-mining-waste-turns-river-361019
Pollution flowing faster than facts in EPA spill - CNN.com

Click to expand...

I think we agree. I believe someone has to decide environmental issues that across state lines, but the EPA far exceeds its mandate, and does react retroactively far too often. Often without knowing what they are doing.

A case to make the point.

Some years back, the EPA extended the boundaries of the Chesapeake watershed by thousands of miles. Millions of properties became instantly in violation of the new laws. Mine is one of them. I now have wetlands along the rear of my property. I cannot even put up a dog house without permission. Others had viable and designated building sites no longer buildable and therefore no longer of any value. In my mind, that's a taking and should be compensated. My check has not yet arrived.

jimbo said:

I think we agree. I believe someone has to decide environmental issues that across state lines, but the EPA far exceeds its mandate, and does react retroactively far too often. Often without knowing what they are doing.

A case to make the point.

Some years back, the EPA extended the boundaries of the Chesapeake watershed by thousands of miles. Millions of properties became instantly in violation of the new laws. Mine is one of them. I now have wetlands along the rear of my property. I cannot even put up a dog house without permission. Others had viable and designated building sites no longer buildable and therefore no longer of any value. In my mind, that's a taking and should be compensated. My check has not yet arrived.

Click to expand...

I think we agree that we agree. LOL I hope you aren't holding your breath waiting for that check.

Screw the EPA! Why the hell do we need to protect streams, rivers and wetlands??????

I once wrote a law review article on a rule made under the authority of the Clean Water Act that had just been struck down by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. It's interesting to go back and read the debate in Congress about the then-new law and how it affected the routine and important activities of dredging and filling. Some senators were concerned that if the recently-created EPA were to regulate dredging of waterways, its finicky procedures would cause so much delay and disruption in the nation's ports as to harm the nation's economy. So they agreed to put regulation of dredging almost entirely in the hands of an agency that had a lot of experience with it, the Army Corps of Engineers.

The problems this statist enviro-bullying poses for agriculture, mining, and timbering interests are nothing new. I recall one federal case from decades ago where cranberry farmers contested a rule that prevented them from creating drainage channels their operation required. Another prevented a logging road, on the ground that it would disrupt surface runoff to the detriment of a stream in the area. The man in the video mentioned digging a posthole--just digging a few of them might easily require him to shack out several hundred thousand dollars for a permit. In the case I analyzed, a tablespoon of dirt that might bounce out of a truck carrying a load across a construction site was a "redeposit" of soil into a wetland that required a permit, because the soil had been moved sideways from its original location. And the hidden reason behind requiring a permit is often to give the agency power to prohibit the project by denying it.

Every good statist knows that our EPA is a thing wondrous and fair. For them it conjures up visions of Arcadian bliss, in which happy birds and bunnies frolic in sunlit meadows, as laughing children with flowers in their hair sing and dance nearby. If not for the protection of that federal white knight, they would have us believe, greedy, bad capitalists (the kind that always rides around in black Lincolns in hokey movies) would be raking in obscene profits by raping and pillaging our Planet, lighting up cigars and laughing as they celebrated leveling another pristine hill or filling in another endangered wetland.

Green IS the new Red. And now I'm going to go burn some fossil fuel, start a nice, smoky barbecue, and waste precious water just for the sheer hell of it. Just by way of telling the commie prigs who want to run everyone's lives to stuff it right up their jacks. Don't like it? Too G--damn bad.

jimbo said:

I don't recall stating that there is any proof. I responded to a specific question, the one I quoted.

I'm not an EPA fan. I think they overstep their mission, and they do it retroactively. The back third of my own property is now a wetlands. It wasn't when I moved in in 1992. But the EPA expanded the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

In this case, I believe that's what happened.

Click to expand...

In fact, you responded with hypotheticals:

"The water could go anywhere, on the crops, into the aquifer, your cattle could take a dump in it, polluting it downstream"

Thus defending the EPA punishing him before he does anything. He built a pond, it didnt hurt anyone. Thus the EPA should do nothing.