Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
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.
How 'bout our choices for President?
I would have notified the Corps of Engineers if I held prior water rights that Johnson appropriated without permit or payment. That's the way it works in dry areas of the western US.
"The water is cleaner" is another one of the PLF creations you seem to be fond of. Is it cleaner after his cattle crap in it?
The Colorado River is a interesting example for you to use here. Every drop of that river's water is apportioned by law, interstate agreements, and international treaty.
Last edited:
Bruddah IZ
DA
Minimum wage:
is it ethical for the state to forcibly price out of jobs some workers (who, not incidentally, will be the least-skilled and most-disadvantaged workers amongst us) in order to artificially boost the incomes of other workers?
is it ethical for the state to forcibly price out of jobs some workers (who, not incidentally, will be the least-skilled and most-disadvantaged workers amongst us) in order to artificially boost the incomes of other workers?
You are exactly the kind of person I expected to be suckered in by Trump.
Bruddah IZ
DA
I noticed.
Bruddah IZ
DA
… is from page 197 of Steven Landsburg’s 2009 book, The Big Questions:
Bullying and protectionism have a lot in common. They both use force (either directly or through the power of the law) to enrich someone else at your involuntary expense. If you’re forced to pay a $20-an-hour American for goods you could have bought from a $5-an-hour Mexican, you’re being extorted. When a free-trade agreement allows you to buy from the Mexican after all, rejoice in your liberation. To compensate your former exploiters is to succumb to Stockholm syndrome.
Finally in modern America, the face and voice of protectionism belong unmistakably to a bully. This protectionist isn’t camouflaged and prettied-up for public consumption. This pig doesn’t wear even lipstick. This protectionist more fully than any that I’ve ever encountered reveals the true nature of protectionism. The bullying, boorish, bloviating, ignorant, hypocritical, megalomaniacal, greedy, grasping, and unprincipled Donald Trump is the unmasked image and un-euphemized spokesman of protectionism. “Progressive” supporters of protectionism might think – they certainly wish – that protectionism (and its mercantilist accouterments, such as that great geyser of cronyism, the U.S. Export-Import Bank) is something different than what Trump threatens to unleash, but these “Progressives” are mistaken: protectionism, like Trump, is by its nature bullying.
The bullies were here long before Trump
Bullying and protectionism have a lot in common. They both use force (either directly or through the power of the law) to enrich someone else at your involuntary expense. If you’re forced to pay a $20-an-hour American for goods you could have bought from a $5-an-hour Mexican, you’re being extorted. When a free-trade agreement allows you to buy from the Mexican after all, rejoice in your liberation. To compensate your former exploiters is to succumb to Stockholm syndrome.
Finally in modern America, the face and voice of protectionism belong unmistakably to a bully. This protectionist isn’t camouflaged and prettied-up for public consumption. This pig doesn’t wear even lipstick. This protectionist more fully than any that I’ve ever encountered reveals the true nature of protectionism. The bullying, boorish, bloviating, ignorant, hypocritical, megalomaniacal, greedy, grasping, and unprincipled Donald Trump is the unmasked image and un-euphemized spokesman of protectionism. “Progressive” supporters of protectionism might think – they certainly wish – that protectionism (and its mercantilist accouterments, such as that great geyser of cronyism, the U.S. Export-Import Bank) is something different than what Trump threatens to unleash, but these “Progressives” are mistaken: protectionism, like Trump, is by its nature bullying.
The bullies were here long before Trump
Trump is what happens when people who are not in government think they can tell the government what the people want.
Its an insane proposition.
How can the people understand whats best?
Its an insane proposition.
How can the people understand whats best?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Agree. How can the people in government understand what is best?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Wez
DA
The US progressive tax system is for the most part, working as intended. The more you make, the more you pay in taxes. Yes, the ultra rich can significantly reduce their overall tax rate through the use of tax efficient investments and strategies. The rich pay most of the taxes collected in the US. The constant cries to tax the rich are mostly a political sound bite that appeals to people who don't really understand our tax system and who pays most of our taxes.