|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> E.P.A. /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1753647446 Message started by MnSpring on 07/27/25 at 13:17:26 |
|
Title: E.P.A. Post by MnSpring on 07/27/25 at 13:17:26 How Enforcement Works at the EPA “… the reason that enforcement flies under the radar is that it is complex. It is hard for even experienced journalists and policy analysts to understand the complexities of enforcement and the data on enforcement that the agency produces …” EPA fined a Rancher $16 million because he built a small wildlife pond on his property. Yet the EPA. KILLED a river, and said, ‘oops’. The latest: “… WASHINGTON, July 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to repeal all greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines in the coming days after it removes the scientific finding that justified those rules, according to a summary of the proposal. …” “… agency is expected to say that the Clean Air Act does not authorize the EPA to impose emission standards …” I believe Trump has something to do with that !!!!! The EPA, is learning again, it can't just do what they please. |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by JOG on 07/27/25 at 16:30:24 Another Fed Department needin delisted. The states can keep stuff right. Frikken feds are untouchable,, and get away with what would land a citizen in prison. |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by thumperclone on 07/28/25 at 05:43:50 we don't need clean air we don't need clean water we need another Love Canal |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by Needles on 07/28/25 at 06:17:31 The only river I've ever heard of that the EPA has damaged was in New Mexico, under Bush2, when they sent CONTRACTED inspectors from the mining industry to inspect a mine, and the idiots pulled a lever and dumped the contents of the toxic holding pond into the headwaters. But, sure, go ahead and believe the MAGA myth that private corporations are better than government control. ::) |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by MnSpring on 07/28/25 at 06:39:43 6E4545444C4553200 wrote:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gold-king-mine-spill-colorado-rivers-epa-claims/ From CBS, the DARLING of the FDS, DFI, WOKE, SOCIALISTS. |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by Needles on 07/28/25 at 06:45:39 THAT'S the one! The actual incident was several years before that report. |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by Eegore on 07/28/25 at 07:46:10 I do agree it's pretty ridiculous to use the destroyed river incident to complain about the EPA all the time. Using the Durango incident as a defense against administrative overreach is like trying to argue against helmet laws by bringing up that an EPA contractor wrecked a motorcycle and died. It's like saying that if a human that works for the DMV has a kid that wrecks a car causing millions in damage to farmers, the DMV loses the authority to issue and revoke Driver licenses. When the real issue is the DMV saying you can't drive a vehicle on your private land. |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by MnSpring on 07/28/25 at 10:24:52 1A3A38302D3A5F0 wrote:
So Demanding a rancher, pay 16 MILLION, for building a Wild Life Pond, is the same ? And it cost HIM a bunch of money, to NOT pay 16M, is irrelevant, concerning administrative overreach ? EPA has, AGAIN, discovered, that they can not do what ever they want to do, just because they believe they are outstandingly superior to anyone else. |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by Eegore on 07/28/25 at 16:11:57 So Demanding a rancher, pay 16 MILLION, for building a Wild Life Pond, is the same ? No. I never said that, I said the opposite of that. It's different. Not the same. Different than the river incident. It is different than the river incident, so using the river incident makes little sense. That's because it is not the same, it is different. And it cost HIM a bunch of money, to NOT pay 16M, is irrelevant, concerning administrative overreach ? I never said that. I said using the river incident as part of an argument for this is like saying a that if a human that works for the DMV has a kid that wrecks a car causing millions in damage to farmers, the DMV loses the authority to issue and revoke Driver licenses. When the real issue is the DMV saying you can't drive a vehicle on your private land. The real issue is them trying to control your private land. EPA has, AGAIN, discovered, that they can not do what ever they want to do, just because they believe they are outstandingly superior to anyone else. After the Durango incident the EPA assisted CO in creating more avenues for them to legally pay restitution. The limitation is in US law and does not apply specifically to the EPA. Of course the massive lack of accountability certainly impacts their decision making. |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by JOG on 07/28/25 at 17:32:33 7569746C716473626D6E6F64010 wrote:
You don't think the states can protect The States better than the Feds have? |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by Eegore on 07/28/25 at 20:21:39 You don't think the states can protect The States better than the Feds have? I think the States will act in their best interest at cost to other States if they can. So that is a benefit to having a Federal process. The problem is EPA over-reach. It would be best if the EPA, and this is an opinion for anyone incapable of understanding what an opinion is, had the data and mediation responsibilities to support Interstate actions that impact the environment. |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by MnSpring on 07/29/25 at 07:03:54 1F3F3D35283F5A0 wrote:
DING -DING - DING !!!!!!! (As MANY, 'better than you', Federal agencies have become) Always think of the old phrase that Reagan made famous: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by thumperclone on 07/29/25 at 09:08:18 EPA fined a Rancher $16 million because he built a small wildlife pond on his property. typical MAGANUT BS what's the rest of the story? he destroyed protected wetlands to dig the pond! |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by Eegore on 07/29/25 at 11:08:22 typical MAGANUT BS what's the rest of the story? he destroyed protected wetlands to dig the pond! Typical BS. He did not. No part of his property was "protected wetlands" in any way. They wanted to fine him over the Clean Water Act specifically "the deposit of dredge and fill materials to create the dam violates the CWA". He actually created wetland. The EPA settled out of court, Johnson didn’t pay any fines and didn’t concede any Federal jurisdiction over the pond. "Protected Wetlands" would still be under Federal jurisdiction. |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by Needles on 07/29/25 at 11:31:04 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. |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by Eegore on 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. |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by Needles on 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. 8-) |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by Eegore on 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. |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by Eegore on 07/31/25 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=continuous-00065-0&period=P7D Blacks Fork USGS-09217900: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/monitoring-location/USGS-09217900/#dataTypeId=continuous-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? |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by Needles on 08/02/25 at 08:36:07 Dumping pollution into the water table is illegal. You can use the GOP trick of providing laws that appear to allow it, but, even with the loopholes, it's still crooked. No amount of legal double talk makes it NOT crooked. Tying things up in court and making it so expensive to fight it are just other capitalist b@stard tactics. It's still crooked. Also, the "rancher" in question is actually a corporation. |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by Eegore on 08/02/25 at 10:46:35 Dumping pollution into the water table is illegal. You can use the GOP trick of providing laws that appear to allow it, but, even with the loopholes, it's still crooked. I agree. In what capacity was this stock pond "dumping pollution" into a water table? They literally use the water that comes out of it in the local irrigation, they keep fish in it, animals drink from it. Also there are no "loopholes" it's the law as written. That pond has no nexus to navigable waters, is not "protected wetlands" in any way, and is a literal stock pond with written exemption. The EPA was wrong - you seem to have a problem with the idea that the EPA could possibly do something wrong. Tying things up in court and making it so expensive to fight it are just other capitalist b@stard tactics. It's still crooked. Also, the "rancher" in question is actually a corporation. Proof or its a lie. What "corporation" is this rancher? He has an LLC, which by definition is not a ""Corporation" The EPA overstepped it's authority - the US courts agree, State of Wyoming agrees, ACoE agrees, Federal Bureau of Land management agrees, Federal Bureau of Reclamation agrees. WY surface water administrator engineer Rick Deuell stated and demonstrated permits in which there are "Literally, there are thousands of them in the state, they are typically built on ephemeral streams and creeks that don't flow as much." The EPA was wrong, they assessed the drainage on Blacks Fork without merit for the navigable water that is over 100 miles away. You are disagree using made up nonsense as usual. |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by Serowbot on 08/02/25 at 10:54:57 Do we really need an EPA? Say hello to Betty and Boop 8-) http://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/photos/797000/620x/twoheadedcow-547299.jpg |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by JOG on 08/04/25 at 00:31:56 Wow,Rowboat! You REALLY dissected and responded with surgical precision to E's question. Such a reasoned response is rare! Only from a tangled wad of polyester ... |
|
Title: Re: E.P.A. Post by Eegore on 08/04/25 at 10:52:03 Wow,Rowboat! You REALLY dissected and responded with surgical precision to E's question. Such a reasoned response is rare! Only from a tangled wad of polyester ... At least he isn't making up random lies like the other two. I'd say asking about the need for an EPA is a valid question, but hard to answer. I think the EPA is necessary since private corporations will be more profit driven and utilize data exclusively to their advantage. On the other side the EPA has too much authority. What we need is an EPA that is more of a data collection service than a law enforcement agency. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |