BHM's Homesteading & Self-Reliance Forum

Posting requires Registration and the use of Cookies-enabled browser


Go Back   BHM Forum > Homesteading > Water

Water Drinking water, wells, ponds, saving, purifying, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-15-2014, 01:49 AM
randallhilton's Avatar
randallhilton Male randallhilton is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fort Worth TX
Posts: 1,443
Default Before you build that pond. . .

Here's yet another horror story about the EPA and it's lust for power:

$75,000 per day for a pond

All Andy Johnson wanted to do was build a stock pond on his sprawling eight-acre Wyoming farm. He and his wife Katie spent hours constructing it, filling it with crystal-clear water, and bringing in brook and brown trout, ducks and geese. It was a place where his horses could drink and graze, and a private playground for his three children.

But instead of enjoying the fruits of his labor, the Wyoming welder says he was harangued by the federal government, stuck in what he calls a petty power play by the Environmental Protection Agency. He claims the agency is now threatening him with civil and criminal penalties – including the threat of a $75,000-a-day fine.

ADVERTISEMENT
“I have not paid them a dime nor will I,” a defiant Johnson told FoxNews.com. “I will go bankrupt if I have to fighting it. My wife and I built [the pond] together. We put our blood, sweat and tears into it. It was our dream.”

But Johnson may be in for a rude awakening.

The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, the EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other waterways. Johnson says he built a stock pond -- a man-made pond meant to attract wildlife -- which is exempt from Clean Water Act regulations.

The property owner says he followed the state rules for a stock pond when he built it in 2012 and has an April 4-dated letter from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office to prove it.

“Said permit is in good standing and is entitled to be exercised exactly as permitted,” the state agency letter to Johnson said.

But the EPA isn’t backing down and argues they have final say over the issue. They also say Johnson needs to restore the land or face the fines.

Johnson plans to fight. “This goes a lot further than a pond,” he said. “It’s about a person’s rights. I have three little kids. I am not going to roll over and let [the government] tell me what I can do on my land. I followed the rules.”

Johnson says he was “bombarded by hopelessness” when he first received the administrative order from the EPA. He then turned to state lawmakers who fast-tracked his pleas to Wyoming’s two U.S. senators, John Barrasso and Mike Enzi, and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter.

The Republican lawmakers sent a March 12 letter to Nancy Stoner, the EPA’s acting assistant administration for water, saying they were “troubled” by Johnson’s case and demanding the EPA withdraw the compliance order.

“Rather than a sober administration of the Clean Water Act, the Compliance Order reads like a draconian edict of a heavy-handed bureaucracy,” the letter states.

The EPA order on Jan. 30 gave Johnson 30 days to hire a consultant and have him or her assess the impact of the supposed unauthorized discharges. The report was also supposed to include a restoration proposal to be approved by the EPA as well as contain a schedule requiring all work be completed within 60 days of the plan's approval.

If Johnson doesn’t comply -- and he hasn't so far -- he’s subject to $37,500 per day in civil penalties as well as another $37,500 per day in fines for statutory violations.

The senators' letter questioned the argument that Johnson built a dam and not a stock pond.

“Fairness and due process require the EPA base its compliance order on more than an assumption,” they wrote. “Instead of treating Mr. Johnson as guilty until he proves his innocence by demonstrating his entitlement to the Clean Water Act section 404 (f)(1)(C) stock pond exemption, EPA should make its case that a dam was built and that the Section 404 exemption does not apply.”

The EPA told FoxNews.com that it is reviewing the senators' letter. "We will carefully evaluate any additional information received, and all of the facts regarding this case," a spokeswoman for the agency said.

The authority of the EPA has recently been called into question over proposed rule changes that would redefine what bodies of water the government agency will oversee under the Clean Water Act.

The proposed changes would give the agency a say in ponds, lakes, wetlands and any stream -- natural or manmade -- that would have an effect on downstream navigable waters on both public land and private property. “If the compliance order stands as an example of how EPA intends to operate after completing its current ‘waters of the United States’ rulemaking, it should give pause to each and every landowner throughout the country,” the letter states.

For now, the matter remains unresolved. Johnson says he’s not budging and there’s been no indication from the EPA they will withdraw the compliance order.

Regardless of the outcome, Johnson says his legal fight with the government agency is a teachable moment for his kids

“This is showing them that they shouldn’t back down,” Johnson said. “If you need to stand up and fight, you do it.”

Advertisement

Politics Videos
Will Bernie Sanders challenge Hillary? Effort to make deportation more 'humane' President comes full circle on 'keep your doctor' promise Cancer survivor recounts difficulties with ObamaCare White House faces new hurdles ahead of ObamaCare deadlineTrending in Politics
1 Wyoming welder faces $75G a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property2 Issa pens scathing letter to Cummings as IRS feud escalates3 White House backing off push for surgeon general nominee after DOJ defeat4 Justice Department reportedly blocked FBI probe over Reid, Lee accusations5 HHS official tells government to take this job, shove it in resignation letter

Advertisement
__________________

Use less, lose less, weigh the benefits, count the costs.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-15-2014, 01:16 PM
Bearfootfarm's Avatar
Bearfootfarm Male Bearfootfarm is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 2,067
Default

If he dammed an "exisiting creek" , he's screwed

The rules for "building a stock pond", I suspect, mean digging a hole rather than damming a flowing stream

If it's shown on official USGS topo maps as a blue line, it's a "creek", and falls under EPA jusrisdiction
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-16-2014, 12:53 AM
offgridbob's Avatar
offgridbob Male offgridbob is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,964
Default

You may be right but what about our states sovereignty to handle their own problems away from government interdiction. I truly believe that the Constitution points that out pretty plain. I'll go as so far to say the EPA in it's self is illegal. But of course if his pond is contributing to global warming then go out and just hang him and put his wife and kids in prison for such a dastardly deed. Wake up America
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-16-2014, 02:48 AM
sethwyo sethwyo is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Thunder basin
Posts: 1,167
Default big ranchers rule in wyoming~the equality state

One night, at my little place in wyoming, as i slept, my tracfone was taken from my car. my wallet was not, not my laptop, nor my guns.

who took my phone, someone who is spying mabey. wanting numbers, texts, contact records.

what i am thinking about here, as i read about the johnsons. is "how did the feds find out about his water hole " ?

snoops, spys, informents, people in wyoming rating on others FOR THINGS THAT ARE NOT EVEN CRIMES.

what the feds are doing, is preparing to run people off their lands, to take all personal property, to enslave people. the health care bill that will make you work your butt off to further pay the way for millions of welfare trash, or loose your land, vehicles, all private property.

the same religion that started feminism, socalism, mormonism and communism is still being practiced ~ the few psycos rule the many sane.
__________________
So ya'll use this to escape reality ? Well i am reality potheads.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-17-2014, 11:51 AM
Txanne's Avatar
Txanne Female Txanne is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SE Texas
Posts: 14,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by offgridbob View Post
You may be right but what about our states sovereignty to handle their own problems away from government interdiction. I truly believe that the Constitution points that out pretty plain. I'll go as so far to say the EPA in it's self is illegal. But of course if his pond is contributing to global warming then go out and just hang him and put his wife and kids in prison for such a dastardly deed. Wake up America
Amen!!!
Goose stepping idiots.
__________________
TROUBLE RIDES A FAST HORSE
CASUS BELLI
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-17-2014, 07:32 PM
FrugalPals FrugalPals is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Iowa
Posts: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sethwyo View Post
what i am thinking about here, as i read about the johnsons. is "how did the feds find out about his water hole " ? .
All the Governments needs to do is get some low paid flunkies (well, they will pay them top dollar I'm sure) to compare Google maps from year to year and the pond will show up. Today I looked up my house and saw last summers garden. Last year when I looked I saw the newly planted grass from the year before. The year before that I saw no yard and my car sitting in the drive way. 2 years before that I saw the empty hole in the ground that would be my house. Unfortunately it's not that difficult anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-17-2014, 08:21 PM
krapgame's Avatar
krapgame krapgame is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Right here
Posts: 1,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrugalPals View Post
All the Governments needs to do is get some low paid flunkies (well, they will pay them top dollar I'm sure) to compare Google maps from year to year and the pond will show up. Today I looked up my house and saw last summers garden. Last year when I looked I saw the newly planted grass from the year before. The year before that I saw no yard and my car sitting in the drive way. 2 years before that I saw the empty hole in the ground that would be my house. Unfortunately it's not that difficult anymore.
Don't even need flunkies anymore. Computer programs can analyze for differences like that 24/7 and not even take a coffee break. And never mind Google photography, when the entire planet is photographed every day by the "No Such Agency", the ability to detect something like that almost becomes live time.

Count me in with offgridbob. It's an issue for the state. After all, the state agency saw no problem with it and issued him a permit to go ahead. The all-encompassing umbrella of "interstate commerce" has become a joke. Or in this case a noose.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-17-2014, 09:03 PM
chrisser Male chrisser is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cleveland OH / Palestine WV
Posts: 1,330
Default

How do you build a pond without a water source to fill it?

What's left of the pond we have at our place is fed by a creek. Most of the time, once it's filled, the water runs in and the water runs back out.
__________________
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Marxism: The ultimate illusory fantasy.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-17-2014, 09:57 PM
Bearfootfarm's Avatar
Bearfootfarm Male Bearfootfarm is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 2,067
Default

Quote:
How do you build a pond without a water source to fill it?
In most areas, you just dig down until you hit water or a spring

To dig a "pond" here, you only need to go about 8 ft in many places

In other areas, you dig a hole and line it with clay and wait for runoff to fill it

I suspect when he got his state permit, he wasn't clear about damming a flowing creek
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-18-2014, 02:18 PM
ScrubbieLady ScrubbieLady is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: North Mississippi
Posts: 1,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisser View Post
How do you build a pond without a water source to fill it?

What's left of the pond we have at our place is fed by a creek. Most of the time, once it's filled, the water runs in and the water runs back out.
We have a pond in our front yard with no water source except what drains off the driveway and part of the front yard. Not really big, about 120' x 120' and 11' deep in the deepest. There is no navigeable waterway within about 10 miles for it to drain into if/when it overflows. Just depends on your landscape (we live on top of the hill).
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-19-2014, 09:31 AM
doc doc is online now
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
Posts: 1,524
Default

In it's continuing grab for power & control, new EPA regs will make every puddle in a pothole in your drive a federally regulated body of water. I think there's a suit pending in court overt this question of feds vs states.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-19-2014, 12:32 PM
Txanne's Avatar
Txanne Female Txanne is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SE Texas
Posts: 14,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisser View Post
How do you build a pond without a water source to fill it?

What's left of the pond we have at our place is fed by a creek. Most of the time, once it's filled, the water runs in and the water runs back out.
Ponds are built here and( lined.)
Of course our water table is at 4--7ft down.
Some are under ground fed.

But many are rain catchment systems to water cattle.
__________________
TROUBLE RIDES A FAST HORSE
CASUS BELLI
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-19-2014, 03:13 PM
klamath klamath is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 180
Default

Hopefully this can help them.
Quote:
But it is a victory for an Idaho couple, Mike and Chantell Sackett, who faced fines of up to $75,000 a day if they didn't restore a small wetland the Environmental Protection Agency said they had filled on a Bonner County lot where they planned to build their home.
When the Sacketts, who contended there were no wetlands on the property, sought to challenge the compliance order, they were told by EPA officials and later by a federal judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that they had no right to a hearing. Instead, they were told to comply with the order first and then seek a permit to resume building. They weren't entitled to a hearing until the agency had imposed a fine on them, the appeals court said.
Reversing the 9th Circuit, the high court concluded that the Sacketts had a right to sue the government at an early stage. The court did not rule on whether they had violated clean water regulations.
The couple were represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a property rights group. The EPA "can't order property owners to dance like marionettes while denying them any meaningful right to appeal to the courts," said attorney Damien Schiff, who argued the case. The agency "will have to change its enforcement techniques for the better," he said.
The EPA said it was reviewing the decision.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar...t-epa-20120322
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-19-2014, 04:08 PM
Bearfootfarm's Avatar
Bearfootfarm Male Bearfootfarm is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 2,067
Default

Quote:
But it is a victory for an Idaho couple, Mike and Chantell Sackett, who faced fines of up to $75,000 a day if they didn't restore a small wetland the Environmental Protection Agency said they had filled on a Bonner County lot where they planned to build their home.
If USGS maps showed "wetlands", they most likely won't win any hearings
What neighbors did makes no difference at all
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-19-2014, 04:31 PM
klamath klamath is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
If USGS maps showed "wetlands", they most likely won't win any hearings
What neighbors did makes no difference at all
At least they have the right to an hearing now.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-20-2014, 05:01 PM
Txanne's Avatar
Txanne Female Txanne is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SE Texas
Posts: 14,233
Default

And I wonder why said (Wet Lands weren't described in the property sale)
Hummm somebody dropped the ball.
Maybe the folks didnt see that USGS maps?


Seems strange this land was ignored until some folks decided to buy it and do something with it?
__________________
TROUBLE RIDES A FAST HORSE
CASUS BELLI
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-27-2014, 03:46 PM
ktm rider's Avatar
ktm rider Male ktm rider is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Western Md.
Posts: 249
Default

I cleaned out our pond last summer. I decided to go ahead and get a permit to do so. It was actually free. I then asked about building another pond. I was told I was not allowed to do so.. in our great state of " Maryland-istan"
PERIOD !

I was allowed to clean mine out but not make it any bigger and absolutely not allowed to build another. If caught I would face fines of over 100k !!!
Welcome to the land of the free !!!!!

FYI- This state has been ran by Liberals for years.... can ya tell ?????
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-27-2014, 08:54 PM
doc doc is online now
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
Posts: 1,524
Default

So the rules say you can't subtract from the amount of wetlands on your property, but you can't add to them either. They must think MotherNature is perfectly finished and never plans on changing anything, ever.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-27-2014, 10:30 PM
chrisser Male chrisser is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cleveland OH / Palestine WV
Posts: 1,330
Default

Is it illegal to dig a big pond shaped hole?

If you happened to have a large hole near a creek, and some beavers happened to move in and dam it up, then your hole would unfortunately fill with water. That would be a real shame.
__________________
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Marxism: The ultimate illusory fantasy.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-02-2014, 07:33 PM
S2man's Avatar
S2man S2man is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Missouri
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,126
Default

I had a friend who religiously removed the cattails from his pond. He said if it had cattails the EPA would consider it a wetland and he could never alter/remove it. He was a geologist who worked in the Environmental department of our engineering firm, fwiw.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -2. The time now is 10:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 1996 to Present. Backwoods Home Magazine, Inc.