Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property

[Luissa]

My problem with this story, is none mentions where he lives, and there is no local story on it. The only links you can find are biased stories put out by Fox or The Blaze.
And did he dam a creek? How did the EPA find out about his creek? And how is his pond feeding other waterways?
If senators and the state are on his side, he is probably in the right but where is all the info and other sources?


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Aww, poor baby, this makes the government look bad, and that makes you feel bad.

Where did you get that out of my post? You are like the third person who completely ignored my last paragraph.
Typical.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[Luissa]

I posted the story using a link from the local newspaper. Google is your friend.

And once again, a liberal not liking the facts of the story, attacks the source in attempt to discredit the story.

I did google.
And did you miss my last statement? Where I said he was probably right? I am sorry I don't make up my mind based on one source that doesn't present all the facts.
In my eyes, stock bonds are important to farmers, but if he dammed a creek and that is why someone reported him to the EPA then I want to know before I make up my mind. Why do conservatives assume so much, especially when I haven't stated I am against this man?


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

What makes you think someone reported him to the EPA? Is it remotely possible that the EPA was going through all the permits issued by the state and decided to jump in to this one because they didn't have a corresponding permit themselves and got their panties in a wad?

And how do you know that happened?
You don't, which is my point.
Way to judge without all the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[HenryBHough]

Private property is an illusion.

It wasn't when America became a nation.

But it is now.

Get used to it and expect things to get worse long before they get better.

 

[Mustang]

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 AgencyHe claims the agency is now threatening him with civil and criminal penalties – including the threat of a $75,000-a-day fine.

Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property | Fox News

Fuck the EPA, Fuck the Gov.

When I first saw the story (and heard about it from Mark Levin), I have to admit that the first thing that went through my mind was the following: I can't remember one SINGLE time, going back years, when I've seen a story like this that was pushed by conservatives that wasn't either a lie, a misrepresentation, an exaggeration, or that otherwise left out pertinent facts that completely changed the story to make it either innocuous, understandable, or even justifiable.

Because of that history, it got to the point that I didn't even bother to research the story or look into the details because I just figured I would see the same ol' thing as I always have. So it was with this story...until I saw it here.

Just on the off chance that there might be some truth to part of the story, I decided to click on the link, although I figured that was only the first step, and I would ultimately have to go elsewhere than FOX to get important details that were either conveniently not included or intentionally omitted from the FOX story. So, imagine my amazement when I discovered that the headline wasn't even accurate since building the stock pond doesn't even appear to be the issue. The issue is damming the creek AND the runoff from the pond. But I'm not amazed at what I found; I expected the story to be a misrepresentation. I'm just amazed that I didn't have to search further to get the real story.

Which leads me to another issue. Anyone in the semi-arid West (and probably in the East, as well) knows, or should know, that you can't just simply decide on your own to dam up a creek that crosses your land when that creek also provides water to other landowners. Hell, if this guy had done something like this back in the 1880s, he'd be lucky if the men downstream who owned farms and ranches didn't just storm his property and threaten to shoot him where he stood if he didn't remove that dam.

And I find myself unamazed that, despite you managing to find absolute proof that the rancher is guilty as charged, you haven't provided any of that evidence to us to peruse.

By the way, if all these stories are lies, why does the EPA have such a shitty record in court?

You and FOX have something in common. They misrepresented the facts of the story, and you're misrepresenting what I said. I never commented on the man's supposed guilt or innocence. I just commented on the fact that the OP misrepresented the facts of the story and that's been my finding with stories like this for a period of YEARS.

 

[bluesman]

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 AgencyHe claims the agency is now threatening him with civil and criminal penalties – including the threat of a $75,000-a-day fine.


Fuck the EPA, Fuck the Gov.

So is this an "Andy the Welder" story? Just as an FYI, "Joe the Plumber" recently took a union job.

Fox news is focusing on his right to build a pond. I don't know why it would be important to call him a "welder" instead of a "land owner" if the story is about property rights. The fact is that he damned up a creek. The people who live downstream don't get a vote? Is the moral that because right wingers hate the government that people can start damning up creeks anytime they want and the government is prohibited from enforcing the law?

 

[bendog]

When I first saw the story (and heard about it from Mark Levin), I have to admit that the first thing that went through my mind was the following: I can't remember one SINGLE time, going back years, when I've seen a story like this that was pushed by conservatives that wasn't either a lie, a misrepresentation, an exaggeration, or tha otherwise left out pertinent facts that completely changed the story to make it either innocuous, understandable, or even justifiable.

Because of that history, it got to the point that I didn't even bother to research the story or look into the details because I just figured I would see the same ol' thing as I always have. So it was with this story...until I saw it here.

Just on the off chance that there might be some truth to part of the story, I decided to click on the link, although I figured that was only the first step, and I would ultimately have to go elsewhere than FOX to get important details that were either conveniently not included or intentionally omitted from the FOX story. So, imagine my amazement when I discovered that the headline wasn't even accurate since building the stock pond doesn't even appear to be the issue. The issue is damming the creek AND the runoff from the pond. But I'm not amazed at what I found; I expected the story to be a misrepresentation. I'm just amazed that I didn't have to search further to get the real story.

Which leads me to another issue. Anyone in the semi-arid West (and probably in the East, as well) knows, or should know, that you can't just simply decide on your own to dam up a creek that crosses your land when that creek also provides water to other landowners. Hell, if this guy had done something like this back in the 1880s, he'd be lucky if the men downstream who owned farms and ranches didn't just storm his property and threaten to shoot him where he stood if he didn't remove that dam.

And I find myself unamazed that, despite you managing to find absolute proof that the rancher is guilty as charged, you haven't provided any of that evidence to us to peruse.

By the way, if all these stories are lies, why does the EPA have such a shitty record in court?

You and FOX have something in common. They misrepresented the facts of the story, and you're misrepresenting what I said. I never commented on the man's supposed guilt or innocence. I just commented on the fact that the story misrepresented the facts of the story and that's been my finding with stories like this for a period of YEARS.

I don't understand this "guilt or innocence" fixation. There's no doubt the guy build a pond without a permit, and because he has no permit he's not shown his water use has no downstream effect. I can only assume some people think they have a right to shit in the water and let those downstream deal with their shit.

 

[Mustang]

And I find myself unamazed that, despite you managing to find absolute proof that the rancher is guilty as charged, you haven't provided any of that evidence to us to peruse.

By the way, if all these stories are lies, why does the EPA have such a shitty record in court?

You and FOX have something in common. They misrepresented the facts of the story, and you're misrepresenting what I said. I never commented on the man's supposed guilt or innocence. I just commented on the fact that the story misrepresented the facts of the story and that's been my finding with stories like this for a period of YEARS.

I don't understand this "guilt or innocence" fixation. There's no doubt the guy build a pond without a permit, and because he has no permit he's not shown his water use has no downstream effect. I can only assume some people think they have a right to shit in the water and let those downstream deal with their shit.

In the West, Riparian water rights are a BIG deal. If this guy lives in WY, he should damn well know that. Hell the water usage and the rights to how much water each state is legally allocated from the Colorado River affect Colorado and Arizona (both of which have experienced huge growth in the last few decades) as well as all of Southern California.

 

[bendog]

You and FOX have something in common. They misrepresented the facts of the story, and you're misrepresenting what I said. I never commented on the man's supposed guilt or innocence. I just commented on the fact that the story misrepresented the facts of the story and that's been my finding with stories like this for a period of YEARS.

I don't understand this "guilt or innocence" fixation. There's no doubt the guy build a pond without a permit, and because he has no permit he's not shown his water use has no downstream effect. I can only assume some people think they have a right to shit in the water and let those downstream deal with their shit.

In the West, Riparian water rights are a BIG deal. If this guy lives in WY, he should damn well know that. Hell the water usage and the rights to how much water each state is legally allocated from the Colorado River affect Colorado and Arizona (both of which have experienced huge growth in the last few decades) as well as all of Southern California.

I realize that. My family farmed in Nebraska. We were strictly limited in how much we could take out of "river" (stream) and what had to go back in, and what fertilizer run off could be there.

 

[Mustang]

I don't understand this "guilt or innocence" fixation. There's no doubt the guy build a pond without a permit, and because he has no permit he's not shown his water use has no downstream effect. I can only assume some people think they have a right to shit in the water and let those downstream deal with their shit.

In the West, Riparian water rights are a BIG deal. If this guy lives in WY, he should damn well know that. Hell the water usage and the rights to how much water each state is legally allocated from the Colorado River affect Colorado and Arizona (both of which have experienced huge growth in the last few decades) as well as all of Southern California.

I realize that. My family farmed in Nebraska. We were strictly limited in how much we could take out of "river" (stream) and what had to go back in, and what fertilizer run off could be there.

I can only attribute this consistent trend of misrepresentation to three possibilities.

1. General ignorance. Some people assume too much while trusting highly questionable sources while also not confirming the validity of the content. This could be unintentional, or it could be willful. But you would think that if it was unintentional, it would stop or at least diminish over time.

2. Propaganda, pure and simple. In this case, people who know better just plain and simple don't give a damn about the truth. If they can sway public opinion or make money off of it in some way, the truth is irrelevant to them. Given the sheer number of conservative talk radio hosts raking in big bucks by spreading disinformation, this option can't be discounted in the upper reaches of the conservative movement.

3. General stupidity. This would more likely be true of the rank and file conservatives who have no financial interest or involvement in an organization other than as members on a mailing list. These people have regular jobs and just buy into whatever pablum is served up to them, and then they run with it like town criers carrying messages when they have no knowledge if whether or not the message is true, but they believe it just because it fits into their preconceived general beliefs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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 AgencyHe claims the agency is now threatening him with civil and criminal penalties – including the threat of a $75,000-a-day fine.

Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property | Fox News

Fuck the EPA, Fuck the Gov.

When I first saw the story (and heard about it from Mark Levin), I have to admit that the first thing that went through my mind was the following: I can't remember one SINGLE time, going back years, when I've seen a story like this that was pushed by conservatives that wasn't either a lie, a misrepresentation, an exaggeration, or tha otherwise left out pertinent facts that completely changed the story to make it either innocuous, understandable, or even justifiable.

Because of that history, it got to the point that I didn't even bother to research the story or look into the details because I just figured I would see the same ol' thing as I always have. So it was with this story...until I saw it here.

Just on the off chance that there might be some truth to part of the story, I decided to click on the link, although I figured that was only the first step, and I would ultimately have to go elsewhere than FOX to get important details that were either conveniently not included or intentionally omitted from the FOX story. So, imagine my amazement when I discovered that the headline wasn't even accurate since building the stock pond doesn't even appear to be the issue. The issue is damming the creek AND the runoff from the pond. But I'm not amazed at what I found; I expected the story to be a misrepresentation. I'm just amazed that I didn't have to search further to get the real story.

Which leads me to another issue. Anyone in the semi-arid West (and probably in the East, as well) knows, or should know, that you can't just simply decide on your own to dam up a creek that crosses your land when that creek also provides water to other landowners. Hell, if this guy had done something like this back in the 1880s, he'd be lucky if the men downstream who owned farms and ranches didn't just storm his property and threaten to shoot him where he stood if he didn't remove that dam.

And I find myself unamazed that, despite you managing to find absolute proof that the rancher is guilty as charged, you haven't provided any of that evidence to us to peruse.

By the way, if all these stories are lies, why does the EPA have such a shitty record in court?

These libs just do not support private property rights. So much for these so called 'citizens of the earth.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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 AgencyHe claims the agency is now threatening him with civil and criminal penalties – including the threat of a $75,000-a-day fine.

Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property | Fox News

Fuck the EPA, Fuck the Gov.

When I first saw the story (and heard about it from Mark Levin), I have to admit that the first thing that went through my mind was the following: I can't remember one SINGLE time, going back years, when I've seen a story like this that was pushed by conservatives that wasn't either a lie, a misrepresentation, an exaggeration, or tha otherwise left out pertinent facts that completely changed the story to make it either innocuous, understandable, or even justifiable.

Because of that history, it got to the point that I didn't even bother to research the story or look into the details because I just figured I would see the same ol' thing as I always have. So it was with this story...until I saw it here.

Just on the off chance that there might be some truth to part of the story, I decided to click on the link, although I figured that was only the first step, and I would ultimately have to go elsewhere than FOX to get important details that were either conveniently not included or intentionally omitted from the FOX story. So, imagine my amazement when I discovered that the headline wasn't even accurate since building the stock pond doesn't even appear to be the issue. The issue is damming the creek AND the runoff from the pond. But I'm not amazed at what I found; I expected the story to be a misrepresentation. I'm just amazed that I didn't have to search further to get the real story.

Which leads me to another issue. Anyone in the semi-arid West (and probably in the East, as well) knows, or should know, that you can't just simply decide on your own to dam up a creek that crosses your land when that creek also provides water to other landowners. Hell, if this guy had done something like this back in the 1880s, he'd be lucky if the men downstream who owned farms and ranches didn't just storm his property and threaten to shoot him where he stood if he didn't remove that dam.

Of course you would claim omissions and misrepresentations.
After all, this is the US Government. In your eyes, they can do no wrong.
And since what you claim to have found it not represented in this thread, it doesn't exist.
The other problem you have is you have decided to make the news source the issue.
Like an attorney presenting an alternate theory to the crime for the purposes of deflecting attention away from his client.
You are no F.Lee Bailey and this ain't a jury box full of people too stupid to figure out how to get out of jury duty..

 

[thereisnospoon]

So who gets down stream water rights? If the people down stream think they own it, and the next person below them thinks they own it this could really go down stream to Mexico owning it.

So who has the rights?

I would say they all have a right to the free flow of water and reasonable use of that water. Putting up a dam is unreasonable (IMO) but that is why we have laws.

Tell me something, if he actually built a dam, why isn't the Corps of Engineers demanding he remove it? Aren't they the ones that are in charge of dams? Could they have actually sent someone out to look, figured out that it wasn't a dam, and left him alone? Why is it the EPA that is making noise?

Notice how the libs on here are all opposed to the rights of this private citizen.
Now, let's take this guy and drop him in Vermont. And lets change the party of the POTUS to GOP...
Watch how quickly the libs change their tune.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My problem with this story, is none mentions where he lives, and there is no local story on it. The only links you can find are biased stories put out by Fox or The Blaze.
And did he dam a creek? How did the EPA find out about his creek? And how is his pond feeding other waterways?
If senators and the state are on his side, he is probably in the right but where is all the info and other sources?


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Aww, poor baby, this makes the government look bad, and that makes you feel bad.

Where did you get that out of my post? You are like the third person who completely ignored my last paragraph.
Typical.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Excuse me? How is you thinking he is right not making the government look bad?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I did google.
And did you miss my last statement? Where I said he was probably right? I am sorry I don't make up my mind based on one source that doesn't present all the facts.
In my eyes, stock bonds are important to farmers, but if he dammed a creek and that is why someone reported him to the EPA then I want to know before I make up my mind. Why do conservatives assume so much, especially when I haven't stated I am against this man?


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

What makes you think someone reported him to the EPA? Is it remotely possible that the EPA was going through all the permits issued by the state and decided to jump in to this one because they didn't have a corresponding permit themselves and got their panties in a wad?

And how do you know that happened?
You don't, which is my point.
Way to judge without all the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

I don't know what happened. I do know that the EPA has no jurisdiction over stock ponds and non navigable waterways. Unless you can prove to me that he actually dammed a river the EPA has zip to do with anything going on here, which makes them wrong, even if they actually got a complaint.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When I first saw the story (and heard about it from Mark Levin), I have to admit that the first thing that went through my mind was the following: I can't remember one SINGLE time, going back years, when I've seen a story like this that was pushed by conservatives that wasn't either a lie, a misrepresentation, an exaggeration, or that otherwise left out pertinent facts that completely changed the story to make it either innocuous, understandable, or even justifiable.

Because of that history, it got to the point that I didn't even bother to research the story or look into the details because I just figured I would see the same ol' thing as I always have. So it was with this story...until I saw it here.

Just on the off chance that there might be some truth to part of the story, I decided to click on the link, although I figured that was only the first step, and I would ultimately have to go elsewhere than FOX to get important details that were either conveniently not included or intentionally omitted from the FOX story. So, imagine my amazement when I discovered that the headline wasn't even accurate since building the stock pond doesn't even appear to be the issue. The issue is damming the creek AND the runoff from the pond. But I'm not amazed at what I found; I expected the story to be a misrepresentation. I'm just amazed that I didn't have to search further to get the real story.

Which leads me to another issue. Anyone in the semi-arid West (and probably in the East, as well) knows, or should know, that you can't just simply decide on your own to dam up a creek that crosses your land when that creek also provides water to other landowners. Hell, if this guy had done something like this back in the 1880s, he'd be lucky if the men downstream who owned farms and ranches didn't just storm his property and threaten to shoot him where he stood if he didn't remove that dam.

And I find myself unamazed that, despite you managing to find absolute proof that the rancher is guilty as charged, you haven't provided any of that evidence to us to peruse.

By the way, if all these stories are lies, why does the EPA have such a shitty record in court?

You and FOX have something in common. They misrepresented the facts of the story, and you're misrepresenting what I said. I never commented on the man's supposed guilt or innocence. I just commented on the fact that the OP misrepresented the facts of the story and that's been my finding with stories like this for a period of YEARS.

What did I misrepresent? Did I lie when I pointed out that, under the Clean Water Act, the EPA can only regulate navigable waterways? Did I misrepresent the fact that, even if this particular stream is actually navigable, the Clean Water Act specifically prohibits the EPA from regulating stock ponds? Did I misrepresent the fact that the EPA routinely imposes fines, yet tells people that they cannot challenge those fines in court? Did I misrepresent the fact that the Supreme Court actually said that is an untenable position? Did I misrepresent the fact that you don't have any links, or the fact that I actually posted links to back up everything I said?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And I find myself unamazed that, despite you managing to find absolute proof that the rancher is guilty as charged, you haven't provided any of that evidence to us to peruse.

By the way, if all these stories are lies, why does the EPA have such a shitty record in court?

You and FOX have something in common. They misrepresented the facts of the story, and you're misrepresenting what I said. I never commented on the man's supposed guilt or innocence. I just commented on the fact that the story misrepresented the facts of the story and that's been my finding with stories like this for a period of YEARS.

I don't understand this "guilt or innocence" fixation. There's no doubt the guy build a pond without a permit, and because he has no permit he's not shown his water use has no downstream effect. I can only assume some people think they have a right to shit in the water and let those downstream deal with their shit.

You don't understand why guilty until proven innocent is wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You and FOX have something in common. They misrepresented the facts of the story, and you're misrepresenting what I said. I never commented on the man's supposed guilt or innocence. I just commented on the fact that the story misrepresented the facts of the story and that's been my finding with stories like this for a period of YEARS.

I don't understand this "guilt or innocence" fixation. There's no doubt the guy build a pond without a permit, and because he has no permit he's not shown his water use has no downstream effect. I can only assume some people think they have a right to shit in the water and let those downstream deal with their shit.

In the West, Riparian water rights are a BIG deal. If this guy lives in WY, he should damn well know that. Hell the water usage and the rights to how much water each state is legally allocated from the Colorado River affect Colorado and Arizona (both of which have experienced huge growth in the last few decades) as well as all of Southern California.

The State of Wyoming approved everything he did, in advance. Since the state is the entity that writes laws about water rights, and the last thing the EPA considers is water rights, I don't really see why you think you have a point about water rights.

 

[Dot Com]

a lolibertarian fouling everyone else's water. Surprised?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In the West, Riparian water rights are a BIG deal. If this guy lives in WY, he should damn well know that. Hell the water usage and the rights to how much water each state is legally allocated from the Colorado River affect Colorado and Arizona (both of which have experienced huge growth in the last few decades) as well as all of Southern California.

I realize that. My family farmed in Nebraska. We were strictly limited in how much we could take out of "river" (stream) and what had to go back in, and what fertilizer run off could be there.

I can only attribute this consistent trend of misrepresentation to three possibilities.

1. General ignorance. Some people assume too much while trusting highly questionable sources while also not confirming the validity of the content. This could be unintentional, or it could be willful. But you would think that if it was unintentional, it would stop or at least diminish over time.

2. Propaganda, pure and simple. In this case, people who know better just plain and simple don't give a damn about the truth. If they can sway public opinion or make money off of it in some way, the truth is irrelevant to them. Given the sheer number of conservative talk radio hosts raking in big bucks by spreading disinformation, this option can't be discounted in the upper reaches of the conservative movement.

3. General stupidity. This would more likely be true of the rank and file conservatives who have no financial interest or involvement in an organization other than as members on a mailing list. These people have regular jobs and just buy into whatever pablum is served up to them, and then they run with it like town criers carrying messages when they have no knowledge if whether or not the message is true, but they believe it just because it fits into their preconceived general beliefs.

I attribute it to your obsessive need to defend the government no matter what.

 

[Luissa]

Aww, poor baby, this makes the government look bad, and that makes you feel bad.

Where did you get that out of my post? You are like the third person who completely ignored my last paragraph.
Typical.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Excuse me? How is you thinking he is right not making the government look bad?

Did I say it didn't?
Maybe re-group and try again


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.