It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
All Andy Johnson wanted to do was build a stock pond on his sprawling eight-acre Wyoming farm. He and his wife Katie spent hours constructing it, filling it with crystal-clear water, and bringing in brook and brown trout, ducks and geese. It was a place where his horses could drink and graze, and a private playground for his three children.
But instead of enjoying the fruits of his labor, the Wyoming welder says he was harangued by the federal government, stuck in what he calls a petty power play by the Environmental Protection Agency. He claims the agency is now threatening him with civil and criminal penalties – including the threat of a $75,000-a-day fine.
“I have not paid them a dime nor will I,” a defiant Johnson told FoxNews.com. “I will go bankrupt if I have to fighting it. My wife and I built [the pond] together. We put our blood, sweat and tears into it. It was our dream.”
jhn7537
reply to post by Metallicus
Those fines don't seem excessive at all......
TheLieWeLive
reply to post by Metallicus
I guess he'll just have to tear down the damn and bring in some beavers and release them upstream.
If they want to play games then we'll just show them our rule book.
Rule no. 1: There are no rules.
Rule no. 2: See rule no. 1
....building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers
The proposed changes would give the agency a say in ponds, lakes, wetlands and any stream -- natural or manmade -- that would have an effect on downstream navigable waters on both public land and private property. “If the compliance order stands as an example of how EPA intends to operate after completing its current ‘waters of the United States’ rulemaking, it should give pause to each and every landowner throughout the country,” the letter states.
Goldcurrent
reply to post by Metallicus
Correct me if I'm wrong but It doesn't state in the article whether the owner has actually built a dam or diverted a downstream creek for this pond or not.
I understand the rage of the owner if his pond is entirely man-made and is not diverting water from going downstream, but in my parts, there are huge legal battles between farmers when one decides to dam water on his property for his livestock alone...
azdaze
Stock and agricultural ponds are clear exemptions to the section 404 rules, unless it results in discharge of dredged or fill material. Now it is entirely possible that the EPA is alleging such a thing, but my problem with that would be that the EPA should have to prove such an accusation, not the other way around.