If they think he is a rancher, that should tell you what kind of a newspaper that is.
Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
If they think he is a rancher, that should tell you what kind of a newspaper that is.
In the Michigan case the court ruled that "wetlands that have neither a hydrological nor ecological connection to other navigable waters do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act". Seems like a familiar argument in this case
Do you really think that if the EPA had a case they would agree to this settlement?
So they reached a settlement, the settlement says it's a stock pond. The state of Wyoming stated that all along.
STOCK PONDS ARE EXEMPT from the clean water act.
The wetlands in this case have neither a hydrological nor ecological connection to other navigable waters.
Perhaps the ruling had something to do with the EPA deciding to drop their claim?
The ranchers agrees to improve his property by planting trees, this burdens him how?
Regarding this man and his ranch....
My father in law is a dentist. He also has four acres of avocados.
He is considered an avocado farmer.
The pond stays.
No fines were imposed.
The EPA was out of line.
You are wrong.
Next!
Maybe you missed in the article you posted about the Michigan case that the court did not come to a decision, being split three ways 4-1-4.
The EPA settles cases all the time. Do you think they never do?
I found the word "pond" several times in the settlement document and the attached mitigation plan. However, I did not find the combination "stock pond" anywhere in there. Of course I could be wrong - I might have missed something. Just to be fair, are you keeping track of the number of times you have been wrong in this thread?
The hydrological connection to the navigable waters of the US are through the Black Fork River, the Green River, and the Colorado River. Did you know the Colorado River is still considered to be "navigable" even though most of the time none of its water reaches the sea?
He says he is a welder. Take it up with him.
Last edited:
Bruddah IZ
DA
Shocking!
espoola
SILVER
Hes a fake rancher.
Like a fake redneck, or a fake conservative.
First of all you brought up the Michigan case attempting to make a point regarding the PLF... the holding of the court was published. I posted the holding of the court verbatim.
Docket nos. 04-1034
Holding
Wetlands that have neither a hydrological nor ecological connection to other navigable waters do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act
Of course the EPA settles cases.
They rarely settle cases where they do not impose their "penalties" and where they walk away and agree they have no jurisdiction.
If you can name three I'll be impressed.
What matters in the settlement documents is the rancher keeps his pond and the EPA gets no money & they have no say as to the future of the pond.
With regards to your contention regarding navigable waters, just exactly where is that stated in the settlement or the article we are talking about?
Being a welder does not negate him being a rancher anymore than being a dentist negates being a farmer....
The rancher keeps his permitted stock pond.
The EPA goes back to DC and ponders their next harassment.
You are beginning to sound like Hillary, squirming & twisting to justify your position.
The EPA over stepped, they have agreed to a settlement, yet you continue an argument that the EPA realized was wrong.
Why?
Rapanos v. United States
126 S.Ct. 2208 (2006)
126 S.Ct. 2208 (2006)
- Rapanos owned some wetlands that were isolated and 20 miles away from the nearest navigable waterway. In open defiance of the law, he filled the wetlands with sand in order to build a shopping mall without getting a permit.
- The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) fined Rapanos for not getting a permit.
- The Clean Water Act §301 prohibits damage to "navigable waters" without a permit (issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers, pursuant to §404).
- Rapanos was convicted in a criminal trial and was forced to pay millions of dollars in civil penalties. He appealed the civil penalties.
- Rapanos argued that since the wetlands were not connected to a navigable waterway, they were not covered under the Clean Water Act and he could do whatever he wanted with his own land.
- USACE argued that, based on the ruling in United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (474 U.S. 121 (1985)), any waters that USACE said were covered were covered.
- The Appellate Court affirmed. Rapanos appealed.
- At the same time, a developer named Carabell had sought a permit to build condominiums on 19 acres of wetlands, but the request was denied by the USACE.
- Carabell sued, arguing that the Federal government did not have jurisdiction.
- The Trial Court found that the Federal government had jurisdiction. Carabell appealed.
- The Appellate Court affirmed. Carabell appealed.
- The US Supreme Court combined the two cases.
- The US Supreme Court overturned the Appellate Court decisions and ruled that the USACE did not have jurisdiction.
- The US Supreme Court was sharply split. While they were able to come to a 5-4 decision about reversing the judgments against Rapanos and Carabell, they were unable to come to a majority decision on the details of where the jurisdictional limits should be drawn.
- The plurality of Justices looked to the plain language of the Clean Water Act found that the term "navigable waters" in the Clean Water Act could be extended to waters which were connected to navigable waters, but not isolated bodies of water that were not directly connected.
- "The only plausible interpretation of the phrase 'the waters of the United States' includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water 'forming geographic features' that are described in ordinary parlance as 'streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes."
- The plurality looked to their decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 (2001)) and recognized that if there were a significant nexus between the wetland and a navigable body of water, it could be covered under the Clean Water Act, but in these cases, the wetlands were well isolated.
- A wetland that is adjacent to a navigable water, or connected by a continuous surface flow would constitute a significant nexus, in Scalia's opinion.
- In a concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy disagreed with the plurality on what exactly constitutes a significant nexus.
- Kennedy felt that the USACE should be allowed to go back to the lower courts and introduce evidence that could establish that there was a significant nexus.
- In a concurring opinion, Justice Roberts suggested that the USACE go back and issued a regulation clarifying exactly how far they felt that §404 reached. If they did that, then the courts would have to give USACE deference.
- Since there were no published regulation or guidelines, the courts did not have to defer to USACE's case by case analysis.
- In a dissent, it was suggested that the Courts go back to the deference they used in Riverside, which basically said that waters covered under the act include any waters that the USACE reasonably concludes may affect the water quality of adjacent lakes rivers and streams, even when the waters of those bodies are not directly connected to a navigable waterway.
The reason I brought up the Michigan case was because in that case the PLF presented an argument that if applied to the Johnson pond would agree with the EPA and Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction there under the Clean Water Act. The indecision by the Supreme Court in that case is not relevant - what I was pointing out was the argument PLF made.
In the documents you have presented, where is the statement that the EPA realized they were wrong? It's only 14 pages. You should be able to find it easily if it's there. Hint - you can save time if you start with paragraph 13 on page 4 of the settlement paper.
If I had to make a wild guess, I would say that PLF preferred Johnson present himself as a rancher rather than as a union welder. It sounds better to their usual clientelle.
Welder or rancher, stock ponds are exempt and the EPA overreached it's mandate.
You can continue to believe what ever you like...
The fact that the pond stays and no fines were administered tells me the EPA realized they were wrong
Here's another media report on the matter:
Last August a rancher in Wyoming who was being tagged with upwards of $16M in fines by the EPA for building a small stock pond on his property. Even though the pond actually cleans the water in the stream which flows through it, provides hydration for trees and keeps his cattle alive, the EPA determined that this was some sort of gross violation of their control over every drop of running or standing water in the country under their recently expanded interpretation of the Clean Water Act. (By the way… that power grab was suspended by the courts, but that’s not stopping the EPA from pursuing enforcement anyway.)
This case has finally come to a close, though it was “settled” rather than mandated by a judge. The EPA is backing down, cancelling the fines and allowing Johnson to keep his pond.
(Washington Times)
A Wyoming rancher facing $20 million in fines for building a stock pond on his property has settled his lawsuit with the Environmental Protection Agency in a deal that allows him to keep his watering hole and his money.
In a case that drew national attention, the EPA ordered Mr. Johnson in January 2014 to tear out the pond or pay $37,500 per day in fines for what the agency described as a violation of the Clean Water Act, even though stock ponds are exempt from the federal law and he had obtained the necessary state and local permits.
In a settlement agreement announced Monday, Mr. Johnson agreed to plant willow trees and temporarily limit livestock access on a portion of the pond in what his attorneys described as “a win for the Johnson family and a win for the environment.”
Here’s part of the statement from Jonathan Wood, a staff attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation who represented Andy Johnson:
“This settlement is a win for the Johnson family, and a win for the environment,” said Wood. “Under it, the Johnsons will pay no fine. They will not lose their property. They will not have to agree to federal jurisdiction or a federal permit, which would have surely entailed onerous conditions. In effect, the government will treat the pond as an exempt stock pond, in exchange for Andy further improving on the environmental benefits he has already created.
An exempt stock pond does not require a fence to keep out livestock (in fact, that would defeat its purpose), nor does the rancher who constructs a stock pond have to do any improvements to mitigate the damage created by the pond.
If the EPA had a good case they wouldn't have settled
I'm sure his lawyers threw the EPA a bone and said sure we'll plant some trees...
That's what negotiations are all about.
Perhaps the rancher was intending to plant the trees all along to make the pond all the more enjoyable.
Where did you read the trees were planted to mitigate damages?
Where are you getting the rules you are citing regarding stock ponds?
You're sure? Perhaps?
Yeah, I said perhaps.
I don't know and neither do you...
You seemingly have a problem with this rancher and his pond.
Wyoming's stock pond regulations some how offend you.
Perhaps you're just a fan of big government....
We do know the EPA settled their suit and got no money and once the court signs off on the new trees, the EPA will have no say regarding this mans property.
Win for clear thinking and law abiding citizens.
Loss for over intrusive, power hungry, centrally planned federal government...
What I know is what I read in the settlement document. I don't depend on the biased statements from Johnson's lawyer (it's his job to be biased in his client's favor) or biased reports from the local papers (it's good business to favor the locals). I also depend on experience, education, and common sense.
It's not me that sicced the EPA on Welder Johnson. If I were to hazard a guess at the risk of being wrong, I would say it was one of his neighbors who were jealous of his creation, or who felt they had a prior appropriation of the water due to the construction and use of irrigation canals downstream.
A map of Johnson's neighborhood (his pond is upper right) --
https://www.google.com/maps/place/F...1aeaf!8m2!3d41.3184731!4d-110.3886012!5m1!1e4
Note that none of his neighbors on the creek have built dams. Note also several proper stock ponds on ranches southwest within a few miles.
If you want to do a little light reading on Western US water law and history, try Cadillac Desert by Marc Reisner, or, for a more local flavor (LADWP and the Owens Valley), Water and Power by William Kahrl.
"Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting" -- Mark Twain
Multi Sport
DA
HRC leading in the polls. I guess when you poll 33% more Democrats in your poll those are the results you should get.
Curious, has anyone ever given themselves a nickname. I know Kobe did, but he's on a different level. It's like creating a thread about yourself, someone else can do it, but you can't. Like bunting to break up a no hitter, one of those unwtitten rules that if you break makes you look like a moron.
Nobody cares about your neighborhood....
Curious, has anyone ever given themselves a nickname. I know Kobe did, but he's on a different level. It's like creating a thread about yourself, someone else can do it, but you can't. Like bunting to break up a no hitter, one of those unwtitten rules that if you break makes you look like a moron.
Nobody cares about your neighborhood....
Bitter about something?
You certainly didn't notify the EPA re: the stock pond that this rancher constructed. but you probably would have if you were his neighbor.
The water continues to run down stream, only it's cleaner after having gone through the pond.
Did the Colorado River cease to run at glen canyon or hoover? It also runs cleaner....
The rancher won.
The EPA lost.