Disband the EPA
According to the Constitution of the United States, States rights trump Federal
rights. This was the reason for the situation in Oregon. County Sheriffs are the
highest authority in the State and have the authority to over-ride
unconstitutional Federal control. Pick your poison, EPA, BLM, etc, they are all
unconstitutional entities. The Federal government does not have the
Constitutional authority to own land (outside of the 10 square miles of DC, and
for ports and forts) or control land inside of the States. And the Supreme Court
is part of the problem, so going to Federal courts won't get you any
Lovely, DNyou post the article on the 21st, but it does not make
your printed edition until the 25th.
Anarchy results when the government is unable or unwilling to prevent people
from abusing each other.Tyranny results when the government becomes the
abuser.The EPA is abusing this man big time. It is time that
government officials who abuse the people face a stiff punishment (like $75,000
Does this family live in Wyoming or D.C.? He did everything right according to
the laws of the land where he lives. In all seriousness, this nation with
breathe freer once the Federal behemoths are neutered and Utahns control the
destiny of Utah, Idahoans - Idaho and the same in Wyoming. We as locals have
proven that we are more competent in managing our states than the Federal
bureaucrats thousands of miles away, who have likely never set foot in the
places they assume control of. I wish this family the best in their fight
against liberal authoritarianism.
So glad the EPA is protecting us from this mad man! Otherwise I might think our
tax dollars were being wasted in harrassing a man of good intent with no harm to
What next? Fining thousands of beavers for doing the same thing and worse?
Jurisdiction is permissible. (Also, fwiw, @my2cents, the EPA has jurisdiction
in agricultural cases; you're correct in thinking that the Clean Water Act
applies differently to these entities because of favorable statutory provisions
that are made even more favorable by rules the EPA has chosen to promulgate.
This holds true regardless of whether the ag entities are big or small, and
massive sources of emissions or not.) The issue seems to be: can
the agency prove that his actions are resulting in dredge and fill material? If
so, it's probably a violation of his permit and thus something that he has
a duty to rectify.(I'm just glancing at this DNews article, so
don't take my statement as law.)If a massive corporation was
doing the same, only on a much larger scale, would the claims advanced by those
commenting on this article be valid? If not, then I don't believe they are
in this case.
He should have stocked it with an endangered species and claimed it as a
It could be you next! For breathing to much CO2!
Sounds like an uprising to me. Can a mouse put a bell collar around
the fat cat's neck?The reading of this article is better when
accompanied by the music and lyrics of 'Muses' "Uprising".
This is what happens when the government doesn't have a budget and is
responsible for only investigating conservative organizations and people.
I have some property where an underground spring in the beginning of a creek
that runs down into a lake. I have often thought of creating a pond or small
lake that would be free flowing just like this man did. I would use it for
fishing and fun just like the family does.I hope he can win this
fight against the federal government. Shouldnt the STate of Wyoming help out
by claiming jurisdiction. THat way it will help keep the goverment out of other
cattle watering ponds.
@phantomblade"Why are we wasting taxpayer dollars on something
as inconsequential as a pond on private property that the government can show a
shred of evidence of harming the environment?"Because that is
how useless federal employees justify their salary. They don't care about
the environment, they care about their pocketbook and they are afraid of the
"environmentalists," which are also mostly people (lawyers and fund
raisers) who care about making money.
Leave the little guy alone! Go after the big guys who you take your money from
and get them to quit polluting! Give me a break.
Water rights of farmers and ranchers are exempt from the jurisdiction of the EPA
in how the water is used to water his animals or crops is his right remove from
the river for crops and ranching.Like he says, I think this is an
attempt backed by the oil industry to challenge the water rights of individuals
so oil companies can go in an file eminent domain over the rights of other users
of the water. This water is vital to fracking oil operations and in the west
resources are limited and water rights are sold for agricultural use. This area
of Wyoming is barren with few aquifers and the oil industry requires millions of
gallons a day to run their fracking operations.If they can get the
EPA to grant oil industries the right of eminent domain they can put the
ranchers and farmers out of buisness and take their water from them. The people
of the EPA aren't smart enough to figure this out on their own, oil
companies are behind the push to change the interpretation of the water rights
for their own use anywhere in the United States.
It's an example of the federal government gone wrong. He complied with the
laws of Wyoming, but a bureaucrat in Elsewhere finds a clause that empowers the
Feds. Or, as the IRS says, it's form over function.
Sounds like the government is meddling needlessly in the man's business.
We need less government involvement and more common sense.
Article quote: "The EPA requires projects on the "waters of the United
States" to receive the Army permit, the Associated Press reported. The
EPA's logic for deeming the 2-foot-wide, 6-inch-deep section of the Creek a
part of the "waters of the United States" goes as follows: Six Mile
Creek is a tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which is a tributary of the Green
River. Because of Six Mile Creek's relationship to the larger waterways,
the EPA claims the creek is subject to the Clean Water Act."The
EPA is trying to claim jurisdiction over flowing water that is 2 feet wide and 6
inches (yes, 6 inches) deep? I'd say what I really, really want to say
about the kind of individuals that run the EPA but I know there's no way at
all my comment would get posted.$75,000 a DAY, people. For 2 feet x
6 inches. On private property.I yearn for the day when those who
are like these EPA people are out of our way.How long, Lord, how
Why are we wasting taxpayer dollars on something as inconsequential as a pond on
private property that the government can show a shred of evidence of harming the