Inconsistency in the EPA- surely not...

[Commercialfarmer]

“When justifying a job-killing regulation, EPA argues exposure to particulate matter is deadly, but when they are conducting experiments, they say human exposure studies are not harmful,” Vitter said in a statement. “This is a prime example of how EPA handpicks what scientific information and uncertainties they use to support their overreaching agenda.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wir ... z2ycFIIIII
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

[Jogeephus]

You just don't get it do you? You are trying to apply logic and straight talk to something you clearly haven't a clear grasp of the underlying agenda.

I spent eight hours yesterday in a meeting listening to a speaker from the GAO explaining - and encouraging - how you can weave a web of lies into what is legally the truth especially when you are dealing with an uninformed public who are hungry for you to tell them what they want to hear instead of what they know to be the truth. I now have a much better understanding of how the unemployment rate has decreased to 7.3% in spite of the fact we have a real rate of unemployment of 24%.

CF, just for your benefit I am going to go out of my way sometime in the future and take a picture of what a navigable stream is so you can better understand how things are now done in this country.

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

Them EPA people will be the death of us yet.

 

[Jogeephus]

CF, just for your benefit I am going to go out of my way sometime in the future and take a picture of what a navigable stream is so you can better understand how things are now done in this country.

CF, as promised I went out of my way for your educational benefit and snapped this photo of the major water course that caused me so much trouble with the good folks at DotGov. To begin with, the initial intent of this huge water course was to allow for runoff from extreme weather conditions brought on by the government's installation of a multi-acre parking lot just feet from my property. It was agreed that during the construction the gov't would put the spoils on the left side of the ditch - their side. Unfortunately, the government employee started his dig on the opposite end and worked toward the point of beginning so while he did put the dirt on the left side of the dig it was on the opposite side it was supposed to go on. They put it on MY SIDE.

Now you don't know me but I don't let stuff like this bother me too much. No one died. They didn't tear anything up. Didn't tear a tractor in half and if this was the worst thing that was going to happen to me that week I would have been more than content. Sure, I could have thrown a fit and made them move the dirt but what would this had accomplished? Would have cost the government a pile of money or as I see it - cost us taxpayers a pile of money so I let it be on the condition the dirt would be mine. They readily agreed.

As time went on, I decided to act on some plans to add some fill to this property while digging a lake. Knowing I was going to be messing with wetlands and water I felt it best to bring in the NRCS office to get their blessing before I moved an inch of soil. They came out and I showed them my plans and shared my intentions and they issued me a Corps of Engineers exemption certificate and gave me their blessings to proceed as per their suggestions. I did.

With two excavators, twelve dump trucks, two tractors and two dozers I set off to make things happen as efficiently as possible but all this equipment was running me around $900 per hour but we were getting her done. At least until Dot Gov showed up.

I received a phone call from the foreman at the fill site telling me some light loafered fella from the government had shut them down and I needed to get there ASAP. Within 5 minutes I pull to the site and meet the pale face of DotGov. The boy looked like he had full blown AIDS but I suspect it was more than likely the result of his poor nutrition from his vegan diet but it very well could have been AIDS. His liberalism reeked worse than my conservatism. Needless to say we didn't hit it off well at all. He commenced to tell me everything I was doing wrong and how I needed to pay $5000 for an environmental impact plan, how I needed silt fencing and this that and the other. As said, I had done my homework and nothing he said applied to me. On top of that he didn't even know where he was since the requirements he said were mandatory were only applicable to the local government that had accepted a certain grant and I was out of this area. (I think I've mentioned before my hatred of grants. Selling your soul for a carrot is not good business in my book but that's another story)

I called the NRCS and they told me I could tell him to kiss my a$$ because he was clearly out of line. Telling him to kiss my a$$ was far from what I was ready to do to him at that moment. What I had in mind involved about 10 minutes with the excavator but I held my tongue. I gave him the phone so he could talk to the NRCS and they seemed to deflate him some but I could tell he felt emasculated by this - not that there was anything masculine about this POS. He gave the phone back to me and I could see him pout. Then he spied the government drainage ditch and saw we had been moving some of these spoils and he started on me again only this time it concerned a subject I'm well versed on so I stood my ground and fought him with facts. But this was like talking to a wall. According to him, this huge waterway - even though it meets none of the requirements - is considered navigable waters and falls under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers which he was a representative for and the NRCS had no jurisdiction on this. I explained to him the facts but to no avail. I then asked him how in God's name could this little ditch be considered navigable. He pointed down to the dab of water in the bottom and said a duck could use this to navigate so it was navigable which gave him jurisdiction.
I apologize for the long post but his shutting me down cost me around $1800 so I could be educated and I didn't want others to have to learn from my moronic delusions of reality. Learning the truth is sobering for sure. Its much like the time I thought my girl friend and I had had enjoyed one of the most fabulous dates of our lives until I came down off the LSD and found myself half naked in the parking lot dragging a mannequin which - based on the broken plate glass window - I had stolen from Macy's department store.

So what I'm saying is the truth is sobering. Humbling. Especially when you learn that DotGov is right. Here is a picture so you can see just what a navigable water is so you don't destroy the world like I have done. Especially after 3.5 inches of rain we just had. (this was the reason it took me so long to get back to you. Had to wait for some water.

Oh, every bit of this is true except for the part about the LSD and the mannequin. Don't know why I threw that in other than every time I think of this day I think this must be what a bad trip must be like. Anyhow, just look at the picture and you can clearly see that DotGov was right and they are only protecting us from ourselves and our ignorance.

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

Now ain't that something. If the EPA get to expand the clean water act we are done.

 

[Jogeephus]

They already are trying. I can't remember the case but just recently they got their hands slapped by a federal judge after they abused their power.

Just look at the evolution of how this all took place over time.

The federal government was given charge over navigable waters which could be used for interstate travel and commerce. I have absolutely no problem with this as it prevents any state from imposing restrictions on the use of the water for trade.

At the same time, waters only useful for intrastate commerce were the state's jurisdiction and waters within the boundaries of private property owners belonged to the landowner.

With time, with redefinitions and legal talk the feds have pushed their jurisdiction into and onto private property through this point source and non point source jargon - to protect us. The states have since given up their authority to the feds but replaced their influence within what used to be private property with just a simple redefinition of water's ownership.

What is sad is this rights have been taken so gradually that its only the angry older codgers that even know we have been duped.

 

[branguscowgirl]

Jo I think that he was stretching it by saying "it was navigable for a duck". Looks like maybe he should have been referring to the water bug! :lol:
What a crazy ordeal!! :roll:

 

[torogmc81]

Them EPA people will be the death of us yet.

:!: :!:

 

[Nesikep]

Jo, I like the way you operate!, and agree with you fully.. The EPA is really going to be the death of all nations...

What's the kicker is all the hippies of the 60's are now yuppies,... They were the 'enlightened' ones back then, and still *think* they are, but are dramatically out of touch with reality... Envirocops are going to have more power than any other enforcing agency and won't require any warrants or anything to do a search. There is no light at the end of the tunnel!

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Jo,

My granddad is in his 90's and has attempted to fight the EPA most of his later life when he saw where it was going, especially this wet lands business. I remember him asking years ago what a navigable stream was. He couldn't find an attorney or politician in the state that could answer it, and he asked about everyone he came across while serving on several boards or visiting the state capital. You don't know how glad I am that you shared this. I can now answer his decades old question.

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

Drink 3 beers take a leak, the run off is a navigable stream.

 

[1982vett]

Drink 3 beers take a leak, the run off is a navigable stream.

And you get fined for polluting it. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Jogeephus]

Jo,

My granddad is in his 90's and has attempted to fight the EPA most of his later life when he saw where it was going, especially this wet lands business. I remember him asking years ago what a navigable stream was. He couldn't find an attorney or politician in the state that could answer it, and he asked about everyone he came across while serving on several boards or visiting the state capital. You don't know how glad I am that you shared this. I can now answer his decades old question.

If you look at the very beginning the definition of a navigable water is very clear and very concise. This is where they got their toe in the door but I will not argue or do I have a problem with their reasoning or their definition. If you look back at the original definition it is clear, "navigable waters are any waters which can be used for interstate commerce or trade". That's pretty clear. Mississippi, Atlantic Ocean, Tennessee River, etc. Their goal was to keep these waters free and unencumbered for our use. Since this time they have used legal semantics to try and seize more power by taking away our rights through redefining words in dark rooms hidden from the public eye.

Just like their redefinition of water ownership on private land in the 90's. I saw this and thought it odd but didn't give it a second thought because my mind could not conjure up the sinister things they had in mind. I can guarantee you that in several years the meters that are now on our wells will be used as a tax collection mechanism since most of the voting populace will agree when the government says it is not right to give one person free use of a state's resource without them having to pay something for it. I'll wager my last dollar on this.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Like I say, he was on a few different boards with the intent to protect property rights of land owners, mineral owners and agricultural practices in general. He served in WWII, but I think he thought the EPA was the biggest enemy of the American people he has seen in his life. I "guided" more than one attorney/politician Turkey hunting when I was old enough to drive. I just remember that was one of his go to questions when he had them cornered was about water, and they would generally just smile while shaking their head that they didn't know. I looked into this a little further after what you said, I imagine it might have been after this case:

Attempting to address years of problematic litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 created four tests for determining what constitutes navigable waters. Established in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 100 S. Ct. 383, 62 L. Ed. 2d 332, the tests ask whether the body of water (1) is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, (2) connects with a continuous interstate waterway, (3) has navigable capacity, and (4) is actually navigable. Using these tests, courts have held that bodies of water much smaller than lakes and rivers also constitute navigable waters. Even shallow streams that are traversable only by canoe have met the test.

and then the wetland issue had him very concerned as well. I found this bit of info interesting regarding how the Feds got a foothold into regulating wetlands-

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), now referred to as
the Clean Water Act, authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to regulate
the disposal of dredged or fill material into
‘‘the waters of the United States, which in-
cludes many wetlands. Because this act opened the way for Federal regulation of many
development activities that occur in wetlands, the 404 program has been the center of con-
siderable controversy. Federal regulation of privately owned wetlands through 404 is viewed
by some as land-use control, traditionally the legal domain of State and local governments.
Others, who view wetlands as a national water resource, argue that the Federal Govern-
ment has an obligation to protect those wetlands that are important to the public

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/Ota_4/DATA/1984/8433.PDF

Then with a little twist of a definition of what a wet land is (from a swamp, to a place that will make a puddle when it rains), they gained a chunk more of land to control.

Now you have "watershed" initiatives:

Recently, partnerships to manage whole watersheds have developed among federal, state, tribal, and local governments; nonprofit organizations; and private landowners. The goal of these partnerships is to implement comprehensive, integrated watershed protection approaches. Watershed Ecosystem A watershed approach recognizes the inter-connectedness of water, land, and wetlands resources and results in more complete solutions that address more of the factors causing wetland degradation. The government achieves the restoration of former or degraded wetlands under the Clean Water Act Section 404 program as well as through watershed protection initiatives. Together, partners can share limited resources to find the best solutions to protect and restore America's natural resources.

http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/protection.cfm

What more is there? :???:


Glad you asked... out here in wind turbine country, the contracts look pretty sketchy to me. With the green energy folks being in bed with our government, I'm concerned about what they have cooked up next. Like you say, I think you have to have an eye to the distant future to even try to make sense of it. But I think anyone that signed a turbine contract around here, gave away rights they may not realize they gave away- not only to the ground the turbines are using, the entire parcel of deeded land. The rights aren't ownership, but use of carbon credits and some wording that I can't remember exactly at the moment, I need to re-read one. I just remember it gave a very funny feeling inside as to what they were asking for and why they would ask for it, and why it didn't just pertain to the specific land the turbines were sitting on. I'll try to get back a hold of one.

 

[NWMoAngus]

Interesting reading here. First a confession. I was a field investigator in EPA's pesticides enforcement program for a couple of decades plus. Was also a farmer during this time and have continued farming and raising cattle, since my retirement from the gov't. Could actually see this water thing coming and knew it was all about control of land use. The fact is I was an unusual employee in that I had grown up on a farm, was an active farmer and had a degree in a scientific field. There were not all that many people in the agency with real world experiences and there are probably fewer now. The typical employee had no private industry work experience, was hired and/or promoted under some diversity program and had a degree in a useless non-science related field. It is no wonder EPA can not get along with those who make their living in agriculture. Most in the agency are ignorant of it.

 

[Jogeephus]

I the same NWMoAngus only a different department but our paths crossed on some things.

Around 1990 the Southern Company created a program where they would pay most of your costs for planting pine trees on you land but in return they required that you give them the carbon rights to the trees. No big deal because no one had ever heard of carbon rights. Fast forward and now we are at the beginning of carbon sequestering and this potentially has a huge value if our politicians sign one more agreement and they clamp down on us in a few more areas to appease the EU and the United Nations which would allow us global trading of carbon credits. (I gained great respect for this company because this showed me they are smart and understand things) Few can even grasp the amount of money this will generate but to give you an glimpse at the tip of the iceberg when implemented it will require homeowners to pay around $300 per household each year to be compliant. There will be some who will become filthy rich if this goes into effect and I personally stand to make a fortune for doing near about nothing. I might add I would rather sell pot to kids at the elementary school that feast on this carrot.

What's amazing is there are those who are already voluntarily paying this "guilt tax" on their carbon footprint and they are paving the way for it to become mandatory for the rest of us. I even know a man who owns land near me who sold his carbon rights a few years ago for a million dollars. As a gov't licensed carbon sequesterer I will give you some information that shows just how concerned you should be. Just take some open land like a pasture or cultivated field where I can plant pine trees. On this soil type I can sequester 8 tons of carbon per year. At the moment, US carbon isn't worth but $0.50/ton but if we are allowed global trading the price is $40/ton. At this price each acre is worth $320 for carbon storage and you get to keep the trees and sell them as you would any other tree. How many landowner's do you think would rent out their land for agriculture for less than $320 each year when they can get this rent and keep the trees? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what effect this will have on food prices. And this is REAL and will happen once we drink the Kool Aid.

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

They don't serve my kind of kool Aid Jo. What am I going to do?