The landowners are simply wrong. Of course, the right wing sees this as a challenge to liberty. The landowners didn't get all the necessary permits and the pond is integrated into moving water that effects other landowners, but, the right wing likes to isolate issues and call them defense of liberty.
One permit does not a pond make. Water structures are very big deals. They can cause an uptick of biotic content or they can cause a lot of problems. Such a pond incorporated into COMMUNITY water is a problem. This is different than building a farm pond for irrigation, it is a communicating water structure that effects others.
Besides the local permits, there are state and federal permits. This is a very big deal and the landowners, regardless of how 'nice' they are, should have consulted with an attorney. This is like building a structure. It is like building a house or barn or otherwise. It requires a lot of permission from many authorities. If other landowners object they have a right to respond to the permitting agency and seek relief from the plans to change the landscape. They did it wrong. Just that simple.
...The government says (click here) he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on
a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, the
EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other
waterways. Johnson says he built a stock pond -- a man-made pond meant
to attract wildlife -- which is exempt from Clean Water Act regulations.
*
The property owner says he followed the state rules for a stock pond when he built it in 2012 and has an April 4-dated letter from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office to prove it.
“Said permit is in good standing and is entitled to be exercised exactly as permitted,” the state agency letter to Johnson said....
What seems like a simple pond will cause changes in the waterway it is connected to. The pond with dam will create what is called backwater. Backwater will increase the level of the stream or river upstream. If anyone owns a home on the waterway in question they can occur flooding now that would not have otherwise happened.
Then downstream there is a lack of water level because of the dammed water. Now the water heading downstream has to pass over the dam and will reduce the amount of water downstream and may kill fish and wildlife and reduce the enjoyment of the stream or river by those downstream.
There is also an issue with sediment. Rivers and streams produce sediment. If the sediment builds up too much it causes flooding and/or a change the direction of the water. The sediment has to be removed on intervals that prove to be effective.
Then there is the issue of pollution. If the water pond covers land that was either used for farming, mining or any other use there is the issue called 'over land flow.' Over land flow is the water during weather events that cause runoff into the stream or river. Yes, even a pond can create pollution. Now, if the over land flow ended it's travel before it got to the stream, now all changed and an assessment to the water quality and sediment has to occur. Some might see this as government over reach and it is not. The government has to consider the interests of all citizens and not just the right wingers that claim liberty at the cost of others.
Yes, sediment can carry pollutants and not just water. The landowners really didn't do the right thing by cheating the required permits. They are wrong and they need to hire an attorney to untangle all the problems they brought on to themselves. They'd have to hire an attorney anyway because of lawsuits that might be filed by others when they realize what changed the stream profile.
I am sure all the landowners new political buddies are on his side, but, they aren't his neighbor.
Liberty is not an overlord to the rights of others. Americans can enjoy their liberties when they act responsibly. This landowner was not responsible. His new attorney will be able to ask the EPA to reconsider, but, the agency will require proof that the pond was worthy of the permit in the first place. The landowner will have to hire professionals to assess the land, the watershed this stream or river contributes to as well as the history of the land to know if there are potential pollutants that will cause damage to others. If the landowners did that in the first place he would have had the same costs but without the fines they now face and rightfully so. When citizens don't practice responsible landownership they deserved to be fined. I doubt the EPA will demand a fine that will create a foreclosure issue, but, it will demand a fine and it may even demand the reversal of the pond.
Basically, when landowners abuse their ownership rights, it is truly unfortunate. Leave it to FOX to be this stupid about reporting the facts that sincerely carry brevity.
One permit does not a pond make. Water structures are very big deals. They can cause an uptick of biotic content or they can cause a lot of problems. Such a pond incorporated into COMMUNITY water is a problem. This is different than building a farm pond for irrigation, it is a communicating water structure that effects others.
Besides the local permits, there are state and federal permits. This is a very big deal and the landowners, regardless of how 'nice' they are, should have consulted with an attorney. This is like building a structure. It is like building a house or barn or otherwise. It requires a lot of permission from many authorities. If other landowners object they have a right to respond to the permitting agency and seek relief from the plans to change the landscape. They did it wrong. Just that simple.
...The government says (click here) he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on
a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, the
EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other
waterways. Johnson says he built a stock pond -- a man-made pond meant
to attract wildlife -- which is exempt from Clean Water Act regulations.
*
The property owner says he followed the state rules for a stock pond when he built it in 2012 and has an April 4-dated letter from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office to prove it.
“Said permit is in good standing and is entitled to be exercised exactly as permitted,” the state agency letter to Johnson said....
What seems like a simple pond will cause changes in the waterway it is connected to. The pond with dam will create what is called backwater. Backwater will increase the level of the stream or river upstream. If anyone owns a home on the waterway in question they can occur flooding now that would not have otherwise happened.
Then downstream there is a lack of water level because of the dammed water. Now the water heading downstream has to pass over the dam and will reduce the amount of water downstream and may kill fish and wildlife and reduce the enjoyment of the stream or river by those downstream.
There is also an issue with sediment. Rivers and streams produce sediment. If the sediment builds up too much it causes flooding and/or a change the direction of the water. The sediment has to be removed on intervals that prove to be effective.
Then there is the issue of pollution. If the water pond covers land that was either used for farming, mining or any other use there is the issue called 'over land flow.' Over land flow is the water during weather events that cause runoff into the stream or river. Yes, even a pond can create pollution. Now, if the over land flow ended it's travel before it got to the stream, now all changed and an assessment to the water quality and sediment has to occur. Some might see this as government over reach and it is not. The government has to consider the interests of all citizens and not just the right wingers that claim liberty at the cost of others.
Yes, sediment can carry pollutants and not just water. The landowners really didn't do the right thing by cheating the required permits. They are wrong and they need to hire an attorney to untangle all the problems they brought on to themselves. They'd have to hire an attorney anyway because of lawsuits that might be filed by others when they realize what changed the stream profile.
I am sure all the landowners new political buddies are on his side, but, they aren't his neighbor.
Liberty is not an overlord to the rights of others. Americans can enjoy their liberties when they act responsibly. This landowner was not responsible. His new attorney will be able to ask the EPA to reconsider, but, the agency will require proof that the pond was worthy of the permit in the first place. The landowner will have to hire professionals to assess the land, the watershed this stream or river contributes to as well as the history of the land to know if there are potential pollutants that will cause damage to others. If the landowners did that in the first place he would have had the same costs but without the fines they now face and rightfully so. When citizens don't practice responsible landownership they deserved to be fined. I doubt the EPA will demand a fine that will create a foreclosure issue, but, it will demand a fine and it may even demand the reversal of the pond.
Basically, when landowners abuse their ownership rights, it is truly unfortunate. Leave it to FOX to be this stupid about reporting the facts that sincerely carry brevity.
