Wyoming man wins battle with EPA

nightflight

Veteran
Mar 13, 2006
9,221
2,655
Your dreams.
✟30,570.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency settled its dispute with a Uinta County landowner whose stock pond allegedly violated the Clean Water Act with potential $37,500 daily fines.

Landowner Andy Johnson proved his point, his attorney said.

“He was absolutely willing to stand on his property rights and fight it to the end,” Cheyenne attorney Karen Budd-Falen said.

“Litigation is long and hard, and hard on a young family,” Budd-Falen said. “For that, I think he’s glad it’s just done particularly since the EPA totally backed down on its claims against him.”

Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Skavdahl issued a consent decree which absolves both sides. “Nothing in this Consent Decree shall constitute and admission of wrongdoing or the concession of any fact or question of law by any party.”

Johnson agrees to not sue the federal government, and the federal government agrees to not sue him. Johnson also will have to plant willows to mitigate stream erosion.

http://wyomingbusinessreport.com/ft-bridger-man-triumphs-over-epa/

David-and-Goliath-vba.jpg
 

aieyiamfu

Well-Known Member
Nov 13, 2015
2,916
1,200
51
✟27,924.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Even the settlement reached is a bad deal. The EPA should have to compensate him for any time and money lost on this battle as well as interest at credit card like rates, taken straight out of the salaries of the morons who initiated this action, bet it would never happen again.

It's true what they say,"We are from the government, and we are here to destroy you life."
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,489
13,107
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,494.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Interesting case. IMHO though, once a permit is granted, that should be the end of the discussion. His pond certainly falls within the letter of the law. The danger will be if every farmer starts doing that, suddenly, the irrigation canals that were designed to assist crop farmers are compromised.

Its interesting that this is seen primarily as some kind of power grab or "petty battle" as opposed to be a resource mentioned management issue. This isn't about people; this is about resources. Certainly it affects people...
 
Upvote 0

aieyiamfu

Well-Known Member
Nov 13, 2015
2,916
1,200
51
✟27,924.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Interesting case. IMHO though, once a permit is granted, that should be the end of the discussion. His pond certainly falls within the letter of the law. The danger will be if every farmer starts doing that, suddenly, the irrigation canals that were designed to assist crop farmers are compromised.

This seems like the right decions.
Why does this comprise irrigation canals?
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,021
23,928
Baltimore
✟551,652.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I've never understood why the EPA and some DEPs will fight some of these insanely petty battles of technicalities.

Because it's not quite as petty as the guy's supporters make it out to be. It's a pretty good sized pond.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/muddying-the-clean-water-act/ (unfortunately, the links in this article to the epa web site don't work)

http://watchdog.org/235785/epa-lawsuit-pond-fines/ (one pic of it here)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/u...r-a-wyoming-familys-pond.html?ref=topics&_r=0 (another pic of it here)



Interesting case. IMHO though, once a permit is granted, that should be the end of the discussion.

He got permits from the state. The EPA claims that he requires federal permits, which he didn't get.

Why does this comprise irrigation canals?

Because creeks supply those canals and he dammed a creek.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rambot
Upvote 0

aieyiamfu

Well-Known Member
Nov 13, 2015
2,916
1,200
51
✟27,924.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Because it's not quite as petty as the guy's supporters make it out to be. It's a pretty good sized pond.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/muddying-the-clean-water-act/ (unfortunately, the links in this article to the epa web site don't work)

http://watchdog.org/235785/epa-lawsuit-pond-fines/ (one pic of it here)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/u...r-a-wyoming-familys-pond.html?ref=topics&_r=0 (another pic of it here)





He got permits from the state. The EPA claims that he requires federal permits, which he didn't get.



Because creeks supply those canals and he dammed a creek.
Filling a pond does require you get the needed water, damming a creek would be a legitimate way to do that. I fail to find the problem with that. I have been involved in building and maintaining numerous ponds and it requires a bunch of hoop jumping to satisfy the various agencies. For example it can take years to kill certain vegetation and animals that will get your permit denied, at least if you do it legally, whi0ch I think is stupid, leave the animals plants and people alone. The EPA needs to stay out of what we do with our water on our property.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,021
23,928
Baltimore
✟551,652.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Filling a pond does require you get the needed water, damming a creek would be a legitimate way to do that. I fail to find the problem with that. I have been involved in building and maintaining numerous ponds and it requires a bunch of hoop jumping to satisfy the various agencies. For example it can take years to kill certain vegetation and animals that will get your permit denied, at least if you do it legally, whi0ch I think is stupid, leave the animals plants and people alone. The EPA needs to stay out of what we do with our water on our property.

That's the fallacy (and really the fallacy of most of libertarianism): it doesn't just affect your property. It affects the property and water access of everybody downstream from you.
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,489
13,107
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,494.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Filling a pond does require you get the needed water, damming a creek would be a legitimate way to do that. I fail to find the problem with that. I have been involved in building and maintaining numerous ponds and it requires a bunch of hoop jumping to satisfy the various agencies. For example it can take years to kill certain vegetation and animals that will get your permit denied, at least if you do it legally, whi0ch I think is stupid, leave the animals plants and people alone. The EPA needs to stay out of what we do with our water on our property.
So if your neighbour dams a creek that you and dozens of other neighbours use to feed cattle, your could understand why there may be some anger there right?
It's about good water management and maybe it's about something bigger than just this guy's one pond.
 
Upvote 0

aieyiamfu

Well-Known Member
Nov 13, 2015
2,916
1,200
51
✟27,924.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
So if your neighbour dams a creek that you and dozens of other neighbours use to feed cattle, your could understand why there may be some anger there right?
It's about good water management and maybe it's about something bigger than just this guy's one pond.
The pond is going to fill and water flow will again equalize. I would hope the guy worked in cooperation with his neighbors, it would be rare in a farming community not to, especially when it come to water issues. By the non-navigable water does not fall under federal control and you may do just about anything you want in regard to damming it on your own property, unless the state has rules, which it appears the gentleman in this case satisfied, so there was no issue where he was in the wrong, just an out of control government that wants to control every aspect of farming, fortunately some are resisting.
 
Upvote 0

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,732
7,790
43
New Jersey
✟203,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
His "neighbors" are probably 10+ miles away if its anything like the Wyoming I was just in.

This isn't like my state of NJ, where people are stacked on each other and you can't fart without someone noticing.
 
Upvote 0

Paulos23

Never tell me the odds!
Mar 23, 2005
8,168
4,434
Washington State
✟309,164.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The pond is going to fill and water flow will again equalize.

Not always. If the pond is big enough the water evaporation from the pond could be greater than the water coming in from the creek. And it is a creek, not a stream or a river. That means it is dry at times during the year, and that water his pond is holding is being kept from the creek bed down stream.

There are big impacts to the bed of a creek, stream, even rivers when you dam them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,732
7,790
43
New Jersey
✟203,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Not always. If the pond is big enough the water evaporation from the pond could be greater than the water coming in from the creek. And it is a creek, not a stream or a river. That means it is dry at times during the year, and that water his pond is holding is being kept from the creek bed down stream.

There are big impacts to the bed of a creek, stream, even rivers when you dam them.
Then why did they issue him a permit?
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,021
23,928
Baltimore
✟551,652.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The pond is going to fill and water flow will again equalize.

By his own admission, sediment settles into his pond, so the water flowing out of the pond has less sediment than the water flowing in, so even if the flow rate has equalized (which is not guaranteed), he's changed the quality of the water flowing through. That could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what that sediment did downstream. Sediment can act as a fertilizer, so the potential for harm exists.

I would hope the guy worked in cooperation with his neighbors, it would be rare in a farming community not to, especially when it come to water issues.

You would hope, but the neighbors could be several miles away. He could even be not aware of some of them.

By the non-navigable water does not fall under federal control

Tributaries of navigable water do fall under federal control.
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,489
13,107
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,494.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
By his own admission, sediment settles into his pond, so the water flowing out of the pond has less sediment than the water flowing in, so even if the flow rate has equalized (which is not guaranteed), he's changed the quality of the water flowing through. That could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what that sediment did downstream. Sediment can act as a fertilizer, so the potential for harm exists.



You would hope, but the neighbors could be several miles away. He could even be not aware of some of them.



Tributaries of navigable water do fall under federal control.
But as this one flows into an irrigation canal, it is not under that same control (if I understand correctly).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,021
23,928
Baltimore
✟551,652.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
But as this one flows into an irrigation canal, it is not under that same control (if I understand correctly).

That's basically the dispute. The EPA claims that it's a tributary of a tributary of a navigable interstate waterway (or something like that). Dude claims it empties into a canal.

I'm pretty sure I've found the pond on google maps:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/M...1ad4de5dcb276!8m2!3d41.2582829!4d-110.4126592

From the looks of it, the stream flows northeast, until it merges with the irrigation river (which is still called Sixmile Creek), then merges with the Black Forks River, which then flows northeast eventually hitting the Green River.

It looks like both sides are being a bit disingenuous. This guy's farm is 65 miles from the Green River, but OTOH, his claim that it empties into an irrigation canal is specious, too, since that canal constitutes the couple hundred feet of waterway that connects his pond to the waterway in question.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

aieyiamfu

Well-Known Member
Nov 13, 2015
2,916
1,200
51
✟27,924.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Not always. If the pond is big enough the water evaporation from the pond could be greater than the water coming in from the creek. And it is a creek, not a stream or a river. That means it is dry at times during the year, and that water his pond is holding is being kept from the creek bed down stream.

There are big impacts to the bed of a creek, stream, even rivers when you dam them.
I doubt that disaster scenario, but water flow that small can't be counted on anyway, meaning he would probably need wells in the pond, so again the water flow would equalize. Although without all the specifics and being on site we could banter about it all day and never really know. I do however assume the state permitting authority has at least some sense, maybe not much. I am in PA and they won't let you destroy a stream with your pond, unless the state or a big corporation is doing it, but not lowly farmers.
 
Upvote 0