Water rights laws extend beyond the borders of property. Where did the water for the pond come from? If it drained a protected wetland, he's still liable.

 He was not liable which is why the EPA never collected a dime and to this day there is no Federal jurisdiction on his land in regard to wetlands - this of course ignores the claim that "he destroyed protected wetlands to dig the pond!" which is completely false.


 The State of Wyoming indicated his permit was valid, the Hydrology engineer stated "in good standing and entitled to be exercised exactly as permitted"  An example that he did not destroy "protected wetlands to dig the pond!" as claimed.

WY State Govenor at the time Matt Mead stated:  Mr. Johnson permitted and constructed his stock water pond appropriately.  The actions of the EPA in regard to Mr. Johnson have been heavy-handed.”  An example that he did not destroy "protected wetlands to dig the pond!" as claimed.


 Rapanos v. United States covers this:

 The CWA allows the government to regulate the discharge of any pollutant (including dirt or sand) into "navigable waters," which the Act defines as "the waters of the United States." Under regulations issued by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), wetlands are covered by the CWA as long as they are adjacent to traditionally navigable waters or tributaries of such waters.

 The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that as long as wetlands are "adjacent" to tributaries of traditionally navigable waters and share a "significant nexus" with such waters, the wetlands qualify as "waters of the United States" for purposes of the CWA.

 Andy Johnson's drainage went into an irrigation ditch.  An irrigation ditch does not meet any such standards set forth in the CWA, or the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rulings.  

 All of this means that statement "he destroyed protected wetlands to dig the pond!" is BS.

WRONG. Where did the ditch drain to? Even if DIGGING the pond was independent of the wetlands, since it is a stock pond, which are filthy, the pollution has to drain somewhere.

 By that logic all stock ponds in the nation are under Federal jurisdiction and CWA coverage.  US law however says otherwise - CWA at the time literally had an exemption for stock ponds.  In either case, he did not destroy wetlands, he created wetlands.  The claim that he "destroyed protected wetlands" is BS.  Arguing BS with more BS is pointless.


All he had to be to be illegal was to be in the same watershed.

 WRONG.  He would have been fined if that were true.  We need to use US law at that time, not law created after.  The law said, and was interpreted by the Sixth Circuit that "they are adjacent to traditionally navigable waters or tributaries of such waters"  Also there has to be a "direct nexus" - that is in writing.  Deny it, but it's there.

 You can't possibly sit there and say he was fined by the EPA and the EPA won.  They had no case and settled.  That's what happened, and to this day there is still no Federal jurisdiction over his pond.  That's simple reality.  He never "destroyed protected wetlands to dig the pond!"

 
MAGATs only get pissed when THEY have to obey the law.

 This has nothing to do with Trump, it happened before his terms as POTUS.