U.S. & World

EPA threatening Wyoming man with $75K per day fine over homemade pond


Return To Article
  • John K Carmichael, CA
    Feb. 26, 2016 2:09 a.m.

    Disband the EPA

  • Jose Canchero Cincinnati, OH
    Feb. 9, 2016 7:14 a.m.

    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 satisfaction.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    March 25, 2014 10:41 a.m.

    Lovely, DN

    you post the article on the 21st, but it does not make your printed edition until the 25th.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    March 23, 2014 7:44 p.m.

    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 a day).

  • Tyler McArthur South Jordan, UT
    March 23, 2014 5:36 p.m.

    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.

    March 23, 2014 4:14 p.m.

    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 our environment!

  • Nordski Norwell, MA
    March 23, 2014 2:16 p.m.

    What next? Fining thousands of beavers for doing the same thing and worse?

  • jasonhardy salt lake city, UT
    March 23, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    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.

  • No One Of Consequence West Jordan, UT
    March 23, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    He should have stocked it with an endangered species and claimed it as a preservation project.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 23, 2014 6:28 a.m.

    It could be you next! For breathing to much CO2!

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    March 23, 2014 3:52 a.m.

    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".

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    March 22, 2014 9:00 p.m.

    This is what happens when the government doesn't have a budget and is responsible for only investigating conservative organizations and people.

  • Back Talk Federal Way, WA
    March 22, 2014 7:46 p.m.

    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.

  • Rational Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2014 7:37 p.m.


    "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.

  • Hey It's Me Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2014 7:26 p.m.

    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.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    March 22, 2014 4:35 a.m.

    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.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    March 21, 2014 8:51 p.m.

    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.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    March 21, 2014 8:13 p.m.

    Sounds like the government is meddling needlessly in the man's business. We need less government involvement and more common sense.

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    March 21, 2014 5:37 p.m.

    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 long?.....

  • phantomblade Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 21, 2014 3:25 p.m.

    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?