EPA and your home made pond

I wonder if the EPA boys have any idea how far down some of these sink holes here in the KY Karst system go before coming to an abrupt stop. I have personally seen a few that drop 2 and 3 hundred feet straight down. A critter falls in one.... the buzzards cant even find them!

__________________
"Nothing so needs reforming as other peoples habits." Mark Twain

The impacts from the gulf spill are far from over. We're still discovering new negative impacts.

I would like to see the wetlands along the gulf restored and the silt load in the Mississippi River diverted to them. Talk about a duck, fish and shellfish factory. It boggles the mind to think about how much that factory used to produce each year before the oil industry went in and destroyed the wetlands and the silt was diverted so that it didn't replenish the wetlands any longer.

__________________
"Do you believe in the devil? You know, a supreme evil being dedicated to the temptation, corruption, and destruction of man?" Hobbs
"I'm not sure that man needs the help." Calvin

They're already trying. Look at what's been going on in my state. EPA seems to really be interested in my state with stupid matters, nothing good.
EPA targets couple's private pond in Wyoming, threatens huge fines

When Andy and Katie Johnson built a pond on their property in 2011 to provide water for their cattle, they never dreamed it would result in threats of $75,000 a day in fines from the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Johnsons believed they had done everything necessary to get permission for the pond, where the tiny Six Mile Creek runs through their property south of Fort Bridger, Wyo. The Wyoming State Engineer's Office provided the permit and even stated in an April 4, 2013 letter to the Johnsons: "All of the legal requirements of the State Engineer's Office, that were your responsibility, have been satisfied for the Johnson Stock Reservoir."

The EPA saw it differently -- and sent the Johnsons a Jan. 30 notice informing them they had violated the Clean Water Act, which could carry thousands of dollars in fines.

"I believe that the EPA does need to regulate industry and the bigger projects," Andy Johnson conceded, "but my little pristine stock pond, I believe, is a waste of our taxpayer money for them to come after me. It's a waste of my time, it's a waste of my money and we're going to fight it."

In their notice, the EPA cited the couple for "the discharge of pollutants (i.e., dredged or fill material) into the waters of the United States," for building a dam and for not getting a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Andy Johnson denies the project caused any pollution. "It's all an assumption. There's been no soil samples done, there's been no water samples done."

The Johnsons have since had their own testing done which they say shows that the water leaving the pond is cleaner than the water entering it. They also say that, far from damaging the environment, the pond has improved it.

"Before we didn't have ducks and geese. ... Now you can see bald eagles here, we have moose come down. We have blue herons that come in every evening. Before we did this ... it was basically just a little irrigation canal."

The EPA says Six Mile Creek runs into Black Forks River which runs into the Green River -- which it calls a "navigable, interstate water of the United States."

The Johnsons and their attorney say Six Mile Creek has long been diverted about 300 yards below their property into a man-made canal used for irrigation.

"There is no connection to the river," Andy Johnson maintains.

The Johnsons were given 10 days to reply in writing that they would dismantle the pond and return the creek to its pre-pond state. The EPA gave them 30 days to hire an approved consultant to develop a plan, subject to EPA approval, for the work.

"Unfortunately I was not surprised that they would come in and go after a guy who tried to improve his property," William Perry Pendley, president of Mountain States Legal Foundation, said.

Pendley has no connection to Johnson's case but has represented others who have been targeted by the agency for violations of the Clean Water Act. "It's very frustrating and these things take an incredible length of time. And every benefit of the doubt goes to the federal government," he said.

The Johnsons vow to fight, and have told the agency they don't plan to comply. The young couple have received hundreds of calls of support from landowners all over the country. Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead "called us and said that he is behind us," Andy Johnson said.

And on March 12, U.S. Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, sent a letter to the EPA along with Wyoming Sens. John Barrasso and Mike Enzi demanding an explanation.

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

In a statement to Fox News, the agency said in part: "EPA staff recently had a productive discussion with Mr. Johnson, and we are currently reviewing information he sent to our attention last week regarding his construction of a dam and pond within Six Mile Creek. EPA will carefully evaluate this information and will continue to reach out to Mr. Johnson to identify options to secure compliance with the Clean Water Act."

The Johnson case is troubling to those who see a proposed rule change to the Clean Water Act as a threat to small private landowners. Critics worry that the attempt to "re-define" what counts as U.S. waterways could broaden the reach of the EPA.

"The Clean Water Act that was passed (in 1972) was 88 pages long," Pendley points out. "The EPA has just issued several hundred pages to re-define what 'waters of the United States' mean and it has incredible impact."

In a follow up letter to the EPA on April 1, Vitter and his colleagues in Wyoming's congressional delegation also voiced concern about the proposed rule.

"If ... the [Johnson] Compliance Order stands as an example of how EPA intends to operate after completing its ... rulemaking, it should give pause to each and every landowner throughout the country." the letter said.

Also troubling to the Johnsons and their supporters is the amount of money at stake.

The couple's attorney Dan Frank explained that the administrative order threatens $37,500 a day for each violation. Combined with other alleged violations, he said, "there is the potential for $75,000 per day in civil penalties."

In a follow-up letter to the EPA, Vitter and his colleagues have asked for, but so far not received, clarification of the potential fines involved. They say their reading of the EPA's Administrative Order leads them to believe the Johnsons could potentially be subject to as much as $187,500 a day in fines.

"In one month's time a landowner could be liable for more than $5.5 million in penalties. EPA could easily use the proposed rule to bankrupt small landowners for something as simple as building a pond or ditch anywhere near a wetland or stream," the letter said.

Katie Johnson said they just wanted to create something special on their land. "I love it. I hope that we can settle it and keep the pond and ... be able to see our kids and grandkids enjoy it."

Andy Johnson said the EPA picked on the wrong people. "Because we're not going to just roll over. I'm not going to give money that was supposed to be for my kids' future and their college for something that I got permission for in the beginning. We're not tearing this out."

Here is what the EPA's official word is: http://www2.epa.gov/uswaters

The EPA is contradictory when what they say the regulation "Does" and "Does Not Do"

Here is a rancher's perspective:
What this means to rural land owners - especially ranchers: If you have a pond or a seasonal stream on your property or even on your neighbor's property, you may not be able to run livestock in your pasture without a permit. You MUST acquire an exemption if you have a plan with the USDA-NRCS in which you have MET THE STANDARDS of one of their approved practices. (Most times these standards are page after page of confusing governmental language) In the very minimum, you would have to have an approved conservation plan for "prescribed grazing" through the NRCS, which could take months or even years to get. The NRCS has been a non-regulatory division of the USDA. Farmers, ranchers and landowners voluntarily cooperate with the NRCS various incentive programs. Right now, if you want to ranch or farm, you can do it without permit or harassment from the government. Under the terms of this new regulation, you would have to obtain an approval from the NRCS (and be subject to their inspections to make sure you are complying with the terms of your practice). It turns the NRCS in to ANOTHER REGULATORY AGENCY.

By enlisting the NRCS, the EPA has enforcement already in place.

Here is the list of approved practices:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production...404_exempt.pdf

While some of the technical standards of the NRCS conservation practices are common sense and easy to comply with, not all are. We found out first hand that some practices are so expensive that we opted out. We needed to put in a stream crossing in order to access a 40 acre tract with our vehicles. The stream in question is not a stream at all but a 2-3' wide ditch that collects the rain run off and and is usually dry again within a day or two. If built according to the NRCS standards, the stream crossing would take in 70' of pastureland and cost us close to $7,000. We were able to accomplish the same thing on our own with less than $1,000 of dozer work and rip-rap. We still took advantage of the free advice of the conservationist on the construction and he was quite pleased with our construction. BUT if this regulation goes into effect, they could FORCE us to install a $7,000 stream crossing at every point where we cross a stream with our truck, tractor or animals. We would be out of business and would soon lose the family farm.

Belle

The EPA restrictions, as well as the Dungeness Water Rule, both impacted greatly in our recent property purchase. We are very concerned about the current and future restrictions! As a Realtor, I have been warning every single Client, about the current EPA restriction and also explaining the local Dungeness Water Rule's impact (boundary also). Our property is outside of that boundary. We have natural springs, so I am sure those could be impacted in time.

__________________

Christie Acres
www.SequimForLife.com
http://www.irealtyvirtualbrokers.com...lori-christie/
http://luxurywaterviewhomes.com/
SequimLiving@gmail.com

Nothing to do with water quality or wildlife, but I happen to agree with the law that private ponds over certain size should be regulated and inspected.

I don't know the current rule but at one time, if I remember right, a dam over 10' tall or an impoundment over 10 acre feet was regulated. This was to protect the saftey of downstream people/property in case an amateur-built pond failed. Sounds fair.

I'm quite certain that if the EPA had been in existence and prevented people from draining and filling those natural wetlands people would have been complaining of overzealous, over the top, oppressive regulations as well.

I really respect Rambler and this is isn't a knock against him personally, but earlier in this thread he mentions the burdensome task of working with three agencies so that he can lay drain tile in seasonal wetland areas. Or more accurately what would be seasonal wetlands if he weren't trying to plant them.

Your contention that oppressive regulations aren't going to help the natural wetlands that filter runoff is correct. In order to erase more of these wetlands from the environment all one needs to do is, apparently, apply to three different agencies and viola! So despite the 'oppressive regulations' currently in place this draining is still occurring.

I fully understand the business or personal decisions that go into the decisions of individuals who are altering the landscape in one way or another. That's why this post shouldn't be taken as a personal attack on anyone in particular.

Generally speaking what we are doing is degrading the very environment that sustains us. Call it big government if you want but it's got to stop.

__________________
"Do you believe in the devil? You know, a supreme evil being dedicated to the temptation, corruption, and destruction of man?" Hobbs
"I'm not sure that man needs the help." Calvin

Thanks.

Since mid 1980s we no longer can drain wetlands. There are fedral rules on that, and my state has much harsher rules on that.

And I understand the good that a wetland does. My county has one of the largest wetlands swamps (its called a lake, but it is a big high ph peat bog....) in the country.

What is regulated is draining the land that has been raising row crops since before 1986. If someone tilled and grew crops on this patch of ground back then, or if it was tiled and drained somewhat before then, you might be allowed to do more drainage of that plot.

But no, you cannot drain a wetland any more. Those days are a generation ago, if not longer.

In the real world, it gets puzzling what we really are accomplishing. If I do a good job of draining my wet soil type - which has been farmed continuously since about 1854 I believe - it will produce more crops to supply more grain to whomever is buying grain.

If I do not add more tile, the land will still be farmed. It just won't go up in production as much, and I - or whomever farms it after me - will just not get as much. Yield from the land.

In the interests of conserving the real true wetlands out there, that are actually wet.... Wouldn't it make sense to allow me to do a better job of farming the land I do farm, and leave alone the areas that are not farmed?

Without going into a 100 page essay, the rules of today make it difficult to efficiently use the land I farm, and hurt my yields as I need to comply with those rules. But the land they are trying to protect is rarely wet (just enough to stunt a crop some years) and will be farmed every year anyhow.

I think that is backwards to what we need - better farming on the land being farmed, so that we don't have to encroach upon non-farmed land to keep food/feed production up.

Again a complex issue, I am making it terribly simple......

The EPA especially are entities of paperwork and beurocracy, and I just can't get my head around any senecio where they will help anything at all, the net effect of their involvement in this will be to make food more expensive, and less farming allowed on current land - which means more land somewhere in the world will be cleared, drained, or irrigated and turned into farmland.

What good is accomplished by this?

We already have rules protecting actual wetlands, and oversight in allowing drainage, irrigation, etc. obviously those rules will change and probably get stricter. That is the way of things, and I understand that, and sometimes even cheer for that.

Why do we need to involve another, overlapping, govt agency into this, one that does not understand agriculture at all? What will this 4th oversight agency bring to the table that helps society as a whole?

What good is accomplished by this?

Paul

What are the wetlands? What's wet now?The us army corps of engineers have been really busy changing the landscape to their ideals.Another government agency that was formed to build west point and just kept finding things to justify its existence.Now on their website the say the are our environmental engineers working hand in hand with the EPA.Yes it was bad before when the EPA was formed but now they are going after the small possible polluters .http://bunkerville.wordpress.com/201...degree-needed/

All counties in Minnesota are currently going to a 17 foot buffer strip along each side of man made ditches. Us farmers will be required to sell off that strip of land, and keep it planted to a filter strip of grass. Dad and I have had a 30 foot strip on both sides of the ditch since the late 1970s already, so I don't like giving up my land. But I like the point of it.

In most of the coastal plain of NC and SC, that'd take a great many acres of farmland, not to mention the 300' the other poster was mentioning!

I agree with much of what is being said, but is suspect the regulations will come about anyway. One of the Northwest states, I think it is Oregon, already has such laws. It was in the news a few months ago that a guy was in trouble because he had drained a couple of stock ponds on his property. These were small pounds 3 or 4 feet deep, that were filling in naturally and he no longer had need of them. He is being prosecuted because he did not have a permit to do it. According to the law in this state, all water in the state belongs to the state government.

__________________
Moving to that big black hole in the night satellite photo. (also the hole in cell phone coverage )

It's about power, and I don't mean the electrical kind.

__________________
Moving to that big black hole in the night satellite photo. (also the hole in cell phone coverage )

Do you have government loans? Buy you farm on government money? They have you in their pocket.
My former neighbor has a dairy , leaned heavy on Unk for help. hey told him to fence off the stream that runs through his property. He ignored them for a few years and they laid down the law. fence it off now, neither your cows can cross the stream, or any motorized vehicle, if you do not we are calling your loan. Stream is no fenced off, the cows are driven out on the road, cross the bridge and back into the pastures on the other side of the stream. He is required to stop the cows at any time a vehicle come down the road.... You think they do not mean business? They want it so that all your water usage is controlled by satellite, you use more than your share they can cut it off.

If people do not wake up "they" will do what they want..

Control the people that cause the runoff and leave the rest of us alone!

If the feds ran the Sahara Desert in three weeks there would be a shortage of sand.

saw something on fox news where they were fining a guy for having a pond.

__________________
Brenda Groth
http://restfultrailsfoodforestgarden.blogspot.com/

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...m#.U53b4kA2Y1J

How about all the housing developments, road ditches, houses on a acre of land with a ditch on all 4 sides......I think they've gone full bat$%#@ crazy, the whole lot of 'em!

I glanced through some of this, and read some more at the site. I don't find anywhere about them taking over the ditches in the fields, but I might a missed it. I am sorta glad we sold a 40 acre parcel that had swamp land, and the run of the swamp....I figured something would come up like this......I sorta feel like I'm being watched now, when I put aged manure in the garden and hoe it in around my melons and winter squash.......I wonder what's next.....reckon they'll confiscate my ole mule and my hoe next......funny thing is they let the fella 2 farms down pump out his hog lagoon, on a hay field, on a hill side that slopes right to swamp