SuzukiSavage.com

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register :: View Members

SuzukiSavage.com › General Category › Politics, Religion (Tall Table) › E.P.A.

(Moderators: verslagen1, Dave, Serowbot)

‹ No topic | Next topic ›

Pages: 1 2

E.P.A. (Read 111 times)

Eegore

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 9389

Re: E.P.A.
Reply #15 - 07/29/25 at 12:10:12

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.

IP Logged

Needles

Senior Member

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 406
AR
Gender: male

Re: E.P.A.
Reply #16 - 07/29/25 at 16:54:30

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. All he had to be to be illegal was to be in the same watershed. One of my best friends, a newly retired water quality scientist with the USGS, says the pond looks illegal to him, so I'm going with the guy who was sent to Sarajevo years ago to restore Bosnia/Herzegovina's waterways after the war. MAGATs only get pissed when THEY have to obey the law. Cool

IP Logged

Eegore

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 9389

Re: E.P.A.
Reply #17 - 07/29/25 at 19:10:04

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.

IP Logged

Eegore

Serious Thumper

Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 9389

Re: E.P.A.
Reply #18 - Today at 09:06:28

One of my best friends, a newly retired water quality scientist with the USGS, says the pond looks illegal to him, so I'm going with the guy who was sent to Sarajevo years ago to restore Bosnia/Herzegovina's waterways after the war.

I'd be interested in hearing his take on this given the pond does not drain into protected wetlands, nor does the following tributary, or the one after. An examination of the hydrology records on the EPA filing yields the following results:

Pond receives zero water from a river. Six Mile Creek is the drainage location and recognized as an irrigation duct. It's average width is 29 inches and isn't deep enough for consistent volume monitoring. This drains into Blacks Fork, also not a protected wetland, that drains to Meeks Cabin reservoir.

Blacks Fork does not even come close to be considered a "watershed" to the closest protected wetland, and it isn't even where the Pond in question drains to initially:

Current and archived flow records here:
https://waterdata.usgs.gov/monitoring-location/USGS-09217900/#dataTypeId=continu
ous-00065-0&period=P7D

Blacks Fork USGS-09217900:

https://waterdata.usgs.gov/monitoring-location/USGS-09217900/#dataTypeId=continu
ous-00065-0&period=P7D

The EPA conceded that Six Mile Creek lacked "direct nexus" to any wetlands since Blacks Fork doesn't have a measurable volume to indicate such. This led to their agreement to settle, their own evidence lacked the evidence they needed. ACoE provided data that Six mile doesn't even reach Blacks Fork multiple times per year.

Interior Region 7 (Where this pond exists) of the The Bureau of Reclamation uses this case in training. Their stance is that the EPA incorrect in their assessment, they use US law and the court case as reference, then show the methods for volumetric analyzation for use in US Court. Projects, Operations and Modeling Division clearly states there was no data supporting the language in the CWA in regard to "no significant nexus to a navigable water" - that being, at the closest Meeks Cabin Reservoir.

So how is the pond illegal?

IP Logged

Pages: 1 2

‹ No topic | Next topic ›

« Home