EPA Expands Power

[Anonymous]

This is old news I know.....but did this one pass the laugh test? http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=29144010

I glanced at it. It appears to have the same problem as the one Dennis provided a link to in the OP. It has no validation. It looks more like propaganda. Every interest group promotes it's own propaganda. I suggest that everyone be careful and try to get the valid facts.

NO VALIDATION? I remember it all over the news at the time. EPA was getting some extremely bad publicity over the case and backed off. The family settled the dispute and paid a small fine. I'll try to find the story.

 

[Anonymous]

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... ing-farmer

 

[Margonme]

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/279421-epa-settles-water-pollution-case-with-wyoming-farmer

The Hill is a Tabloid. Nothing wrong with that form of journalism. I would be uncomfortable commenting on this news without knowing more. It portends that EPA overstepped their perceived authority but there is not enough information in this brief commentary than to raise mild interest.

 

[Jogeephus]

Remember, most federal agencies have delegated enforcement to state agencies. You did not say what agency he represented. I do know state agencies sometimes scape the bottom of the barrel to complete the hiring. Sad but true.

This idiot did work for the state EPD. As he was screwing with me I called the feds and my contact guy told me to to tell him to kiss my azz. As much as I wanted to do this I knew he would hunt around long enough and find something I was doing wrong or come back and mess with me more. He had already cost me around $1800 with him stopping the work I was paying for and had he stayed around there was going to be additional fees because I would need to dig a hole to bury this nut in.

Wise man. I have some stories I cannot tell and hold to my ethics. I can say this, there are some incompetent enforcement agents out there. The problem you mention is real. If you get a beef going with them, they can become vindictive.

Hopefully, you don't have to resort to disposing of their body parts. :lol2:

I don't bet much but I'd be willing to bet you $100 this guy drives a VW bus with Greenpeace stickers on it. I know he is a crusader. Even made a point to remember his name because if I'm ever told I only have a few weeks to live I plan on paying this fella a visit.

 

[Anonymous]

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/279421-epa-settles-water-pollution-case-with-wyoming-farmer

The Hill is a Tabloid. Nothing wrong with that form of journalism. I would be uncomfortable commenting on this news without knowing more. It portends that EPA overstepped their perceived authority but there is not enough information in this brief commentary than to raise mild interest.

I'm not sure what you want. Is this one credible enough? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08 ... fines.html

 

[Margonme]

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/279421-epa-settles-water-pollution-case-with-wyoming-farmer

The Hill is a Tabloid. Nothing wrong with that form of journalism. I would be uncomfortable commenting on this news without knowing more. It portends that EPA overstepped their perceived authority but there is not enough information in this brief commentary than to raise mild interest.

I'm not sure what you want. Is this one credible enough? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08 ... fines.html

I want information on the statue or regulation that was cited in the notification of violation. The history of the case. Did the operator of the structure responsible for the citation ignore it? For how long did the operator ignore it? Did the operator take contrary measures instead of the measures prescribed?

We live in the age of "sensationalism ". Tabloids often "fact mine" the information they need to sensationalize their story.

This story is probably valid but I would not comment until I understood the underlying facts and history. Same with the OP link. Appears to be a case of "fact mining" for the purpose of sensationalism/propoganda.

 

[greybeard]

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/279421-epa-settles-water-pollution-case-with-wyoming-farmer

("Post by Margonme » Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:24 pm

Folks, I have no horse in this race.")*

The Hill is a Tabloid. Nothing wrong with that form of journalism. I would be uncomfortable commenting on this news without knowing more. It portends that EPA overstepped their perceived authority but there is not enough information in this brief commentary than to raise mild interest.

I'm not sure what you want. Is this one credible enough? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08 ... fines.html

*Oh yes you do citizen--the price of freedom is eternal vigilance--see my sig.
No, Zirlottkim--not enough. You should post something that proves Ron's point for him instead of trying to dispute it. (sarcasm off)

 

[Margonme]

("Post by Margonme » Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:24 pm

Folks, I have no horse in this race.")*

The Hill is a Tabloid. Nothing wrong with that form of journalism. I would be uncomfortable commenting on this news without knowing more. It portends that EPA overstepped their perceived authority but there is not enough information in this brief commentary than to raise mild interest.

I'm not sure what you want. Is this one credible enough? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08 ... fines.html

*Oh yes you do citizen--the price of freedom is eternal vigilance--see my sig.
No, Zirlottkim--not enough. You should post something that proves Ron's point for him instead of trying to dispute it. (sarcasm off)

Disagree. GB. My point is clear. I have seen too many of these cases look totally different after the case facts are understood.

I stated the case is interesting and perhaps valid, I am only reserving personal judgement until I know the facts of the case. That is not a very high bar to set.

 

[Clodhopper]

Farm Bureau has been fighting WOTUS from the beginning, which is what they should be doing, not lobbying for more farm welfare programs. WOTUS is another example of extreme government overreach of power.

 

[Margonme]

Farm Bureau has been fighting WOTUS from the beginning, which is what they should be doing, not lobbying for more farm welfare programs. WOTUS is another example of extreme government overreach of power.

The issue of WOTUS goes back a long way. Amazing that a definition has not been codified by now.

 

[Caustic Burno]

What's this?

A Senate report.

Ask yourself, Who controls the Senate. The majority party, Republicans. Do you think they are honest?

Do you think they put a little Polish on their product?

I have seen that report. It has some valid issues.

I view the EPA no better than Hitler's SS
They along with a host of other alphabet soup agencies are unconstitutional

 

[Margonme]

What's this?

A Senate report.

Ask yourself, Who controls the Senate. The majority party, Republicans. Do you think they are honest?

Do you think they put a little Polish on their product?

I have seen that report. It has some valid issues.

I view the EPA no better than Hitler's SS
They along with a host of other alphabet soup agencies are unconstitutional

Strick adherence to the Constitution, you are correct. Numerous agencies of the federal government are not provided for in the Constitution.

I respect your views on that more than most here because you hold to those views be it a sunny day or a rainy day.

For example, Miranda rights for everyone regardless of race, gender, etc. You were one of the few on that thread to honor the strict constitutional interpretation.

 

[Clodhopper]

Whether you agree with the subject at hand or not, the root of the problem is that these gov't agencies and judges have far to much power. Laws in this nation are supposed to be made in Congress, then approved or vetoed by the President then the veto overridden, etc. These agencies and judges that legislate from the bench are bypassing our system of checks and balances. It's called tyranny.

 

[Clodhopper]

A Senate report.

Ask yourself, Who controls the Senate. The majority party, Republicans. Do you think they are honest?

Do you think they put a little Polish on their product?

I have seen that report. It has some valid issues.

I view the EPA no better than Hitler's SS
They along with a host of other alphabet soup agencies are unconstitutional

Strick adherence to the Constitution, you are correct. Numerous agencies of the federal government are not provided for in the Constitution.

I respect your views on that more than most here because you hold to those views be it a sunny day or a rainy day.

For example, Miranda rights for everyone regardless of race, gender, etc. You were one of the few on that thread to honor the strict constitutional interpretation.

The Constitution is all we have. As a nation, we had better get back to it or we will surely fall. It is our system of absolutes or principles, without those we've nothing but an organized anarchy.

 

[Margonme]

Whether you agree with the subject at hand or not, the root of the problem is that these gov't agencies and judges have far to much power. Laws in this nation are supposed to be made in Congress, then approved or vetoed by the President then the veto overridden, etc. These agencies and judges that legislate from the bench are bypassing our system of checks and balances. It's called tyranny.

Regarding the agencies, their powers are extended to them via legislation. There are checks and balances in the system that is intended to oversee abuse of their powers. IMO, the abuse of power occurs but is often exaggerated.

Checks and balances on the Judiciary branch is more difficult because of the long held sacred position that the courts have held in our society.

 

[greybeard]

nexus..............
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/fi ... -20862.pdf
among the troubling text is Jo's ditch (SAB=EPA's Scientific Advisory Board) :
The exclusions paragraph of the
proposed rule generated the most
comments from the SAB. The SAB
noted, ''[t]he Clean Water Act
exclusions of groundwater and certain
other exclusions listed in the proposed
rule and the current regulation do not have scientific justification.'' Id. With
regard to ditches, the Board found that
there is a lack of scientific knowledge to
determine whether ditches should be
categorically excluded. For example,
some ditches that would be excluded in
the Midwest may drain Cowardin
wetlands and may provide certain
ecosystem services, while gullies, rills,
and non-wetland swales can be
important conduits for moving water
between jurisdictional waters. The SAB
also noted that artificial lakes or ponds,
or reflection pools, can be directly
connected to jurisdictional waters via
either shallow or deep groundwater.
The SAB also recommended that the
agencies clarify in the preamble to the
final rule that ''significant nexus'' is a
legal term, not a scientific one.

Reading thru it, it is apparent that EPA considers any water within a 100 yr flood plain and/or within 4000' of a more traditional navigable waterway, or to be connected in any way to such... to be WOTUS. see pg 37076

 

[kenny thomas]

For any of you that have participated in NRCS cost share programs and signed something saying that you will maintain that practice for 10-15 years. Recently I discovered that under the Farm Bill they have no enforcement powers. If you fence the livestock from the streams and install water systems and then turn the cattle back to the streams they will do nothing.
I told them I wanted a hay barn. They said they do not do hay barns. I told them then I want a feed barn and as soon as you pay your part it will never have a cow or calf in it. I will stack hay in it. They said they cant do anything about it. I personally know of 2 feed barns that have been built that have never had an animal in them. They pay per sq ft and we can get them built here for less than they pay.

 

[Margonme]

nexus..............
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/fi ... -20862.pdf
among the troubling text is Jo's ditch (SAB=EPA's Scientific Advisory Board) :
The exclusions paragraph of the
proposed rule generated the most
comments from the SAB. The SAB
noted, ''[t]he Clean Water Act
exclusions of groundwater and certain
other exclusions listed in the proposed
rule and the current regulation do not have scientific justification.'' Id. With
regard to ditches, the Board found that
there is a lack of scientific knowledge to
determine whether ditches should be
categorically excluded. For example,
some ditches that would be excluded in
the Midwest may drain Cowardin
wetlands and may provide certain
ecosystem services, while gullies, rills,
and non-wetland swales can be
important conduits for moving water
between jurisdictional waters. The SAB
also noted that artificial lakes or ponds,
or reflection pools, can be directly
connected to jurisdictional waters via
either shallow or deep groundwater.
The SAB also recommended that the
agencies clarify in the preamble to the
final rule that ''significant nexus'' is a
legal term, not a scientific one.

Reading thru it, it is apparent that EPA considers any water within a 100 yr flood plain and/or within 4000' of a more traditional navigable waterway, or to be connected in any way to such... to be WOTUS. see pg 37076

Important: there are two issues:

1. Navigable Waters of the US.
2. Waters of the US subject to the Clean Water Act.

The Final Rule you provided a link to defines those waters that are subject to protection under the CWA.

The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) are publishing a
final rule defining the scope of waters
protected under the Clean Water Act
(CWA or the Act)....

The regulatory authority whom Jo introduced us to was claiming that Navigable waters were any body of water that could float a duck. That is incorrect.

That is how I read Jo's comment. I stand to be corrected on how I interpreted his post.

I have not read page 37076. I will post when I do.

 

[Margonme]

WOTUS and the scope of the waters protected by the CWA are often used without definition. The final rule you provided a link to is impossible to capture in a few words, but it does go a step beyond the traditional term, WOTUS. The page you noted 37076; my read of it was that it was defining ephemeral streams, tributaries and flow. What I think may capture the main points is the following copied from the Final Rule:

The scope of jurisdiction in this rule
is narrower than that under the existing
regulation. Fewer waters will be defined
as ''waters of the United States'' under
the rule than under the existing
regulations, in part because the rule
puts important qualifiers on some
existing categories such as tributaries. In
addition, the rule provides greater
clarity regarding which waters are
subject to CWA jurisdiction, reducing
the instances in which permitting
authorities, including the states and
tribes with authorized section 402 and
404 CWA permitting programs, would
need to make jurisdictional
determinations on a case-specific basis.

 

[hurleyjd]

Who on these boards would want dirty water and dirty air not me for sure.