epa (uncle) in charge in wyoming...

where are the personal property rights... think you own your own land??? we are just all renters here... 

 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/14/wyoming-welder-faces-fine-for...

Frosty....'s picture
Frosty....
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/9/07

 -}}}}}--------------->>>

Ice fishermen are simple creatures, they just need a hole and their pole

 

The Mantis's picture
The Mantis
Offline
Joined: 12/7/12

 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

 Time to barracade and go Gordon Kahl on the epa if I was him.

 

doublebarrelsaloon's picture
doublebarrelsaloon
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/22/09

 F them. Just saying. always been a dream of mine to have a pond/dam/lake on my land and keep it managed for anyone who wants to use it. His whole land area is 8 acres? Good grief if he isn't pumping cow crap into his neighbors stream leave the guy alone.

I dont go around guessing cup sizes either I just know a nice rack when I see one.

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

 I plan to dam up a spot on my land sometime this summer.  right above the neighbors dam

 

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

If it's on a creek it is a dam and not a stock pond.  However, they complain about the discharge.  If he is adding nothing to it it's not discharge it's simply overflow.  If it wasn't a dam ducks would still crap in it and perhaps fish and deer also.  A small reservoir the size of a stockpond changes nothing.  I suspect the guy said something and they are looking for avenues to punish him.  Dirty politics involved is my guess.  Maybe I just need to stop watching house of cards.  It's to much like I suspect things really are.

Johnny 7's picture
Johnny 7
Offline
WEEKEND WARRIOR
Joined: 2/11/02

 Would he happen to be a member of the Tea Party or something like that?  It would certainly explain things on why this is happening.

God, Family, Green Bay Packers!

Johnny 7

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:
If it's on a creek it is a dam and not a stock pond.  However, they complain about the discharge.  If he is adding nothing to it it's not discharge it's simply overflow.  If it wasn't a dam ducks would still crap in it and perhaps fish and deer also.  A small reservoir the size of a stockpond changes nothing.  I suspect the guy said something and they are looking for avenues to punish him.  Dirty politics involved is my guess.  Maybe I just need to stop watching house of cards.  It's to much like I suspect things really are.

Or it could just be the EPA is flexing it's authoratative power to meet the enviromental extremist agenda it has any more because of "collaborative" agreements with groups like The Nature Conservancy..

Met a guy a couple years ago hunting up north from Minnesota that created a 1.5 acre pond in his back yard. EPA came in and he had to return everything to what it was.

This happens more than people know.

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

eyexer Said:
 I plan to dam up a spot on my land sometime this summer.  right above the neighbors dam

You may wish to contact the ND State Water Commission for such a thing.  If your neighbor has a permit, they can and will make you pay for removing your dam if you negatively affect your neighbor's pre-existing water right.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

gst Said:
Or it could just be the EPA is flexing it's authoratative power to meet the enviromental extremist agenda it has any more because of "collaborative" agreements with groups like The Nature Conservancy..

Met a guy a couple years ago hunting up north from Minnesota that created a 1.5 acre pond in his back yard. EPA came in and he had to return everything to what it was.

This happens more than people know.

EPA or MN DNR?  I thought for sure MN had primacy over their surface waters for such things.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

cpete2's picture
cpete2
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/8/02

8 acres are considered "sprawling" now? In Wyoming? I would like to see a picture of said "stock pond" before I take the word of an organization with an agenda

 

Foamit's picture
Foamit
Offline
Joined: 12/7/13

cpete2 Said:
8 acres are considered "sprawling" now? In Wyoming? I would like to see a picture of said "stock pond" before I take the word of an organization with an agenda

go into the link and hit the arrow on the right side of the picture... you will see evil illegal pond... 

fish-head's picture
fish-head
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/21/07

MN DNR would be the authority on this particular case.

Allen Said:

gst Said:
Or it could just be the EPA is flexing it's authoratative power to meet the enviromental extremist agenda it has any more because of "collaborative" agreements with groups like The Nature Conservancy..

Met a guy a couple years ago hunting up north from Minnesota that created a 1.5 acre pond in his back yard. EPA came in and he had to return everything to what it was.

This happens more than people know.

EPA or MN DNR?  I thought for sure MN had primacy over their surface waters for such things.

"A true friend is one who overlooks your failures and tolerates your sucesses"

cpete2's picture
cpete2
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/8/02

I don't have an arrow. Maybe because I am on mobile?

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Allen Said:

gst Said:
Or it could just be the EPA is flexing it's authoratative power to meet the enviromental extremist agenda it has any more because of "collaborative" agreements with groups like The Nature Conservancy..

Met a guy a couple years ago hunting up north from Minnesota that created a 1.5 acre pond in his back yard. EPA came in and he had to return everything to what it was.

This happens more than people know.

EPA or MN DNR?  I thought for sure MN had primacy over their surface waters for such things.

Sounded like there were separate issues with both.

Point is it was his property and there were no complaints from any neighbors, raher they supported it as he had stocked fish and the neighbor kids were welcome to go fishing there.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

From the link:

The authority of the EPA has recently been called into question over proposed rule changes that would redefine what bodies of water the government agency will oversee under the Clean Water Act.

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.

 
Actually they are going after waters that never have ANY affects on down stream navigable waters.

And there in lies the issue. The IRS, the EPA, ect...... all govt agencies that seem to forget as a govt agency they are accountable to ALL the people, not just those that force their radical agendas on them.

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/watershed/upload/hwi-mou.pdf

Why do we want these orgs and EPA to gain even more control over our state?

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

gst,

I am pretty sure that in the text you've used the term "EPA" includes state agencies that enforce the federal law under state guidelines.  Hence the term primacy.  It gives states the ability to tweak enforcement as they see fit. 

In a state that has primacy (such as ND), the EPA stays on the sidelines if a state agency (such as the NDDOH, MN DNR or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) are in place to handle it.  The feds simply would not be welcome by the state and would result in a turf war. 

There are, of course, times where the EPA says a state isn't doing enough to enforce the rules and they can yank primacy and take over the enforcement.  But it would be difficult to believe the state and EPA are both raining on someone's parade over the same topic.  It is possible though that the same person could be running afoul of both the feds and state on different issues.  That would seem to be the most plausible.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

 

Allen Said:

eyexer Said:
 I plan to dam up a spot on my land sometime this summer.  right above the neighbors dam

You may wish to contact the ND State Water Commission for such a thing.  If your neighbor has a permit, they can and will make you pay for removing your dam if you negatively affect your neighbor's pre-existing water right.

I asked the county about it and they told me no problem.  

 

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

eyexer Said:
 

I asked the county about it and they told me no problem.  

Well, by all means you should jump on that then.

Make sure you have a copy of the county's approval at hand when the State shows up.  That should impress the hell out of them.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Allen Said:
gst,

I am pretty sure that in the text you've used the term "EPA" includes state agencies that enforce the federal law under state guidelines.  Hence the term primacy.  It gives states the ability to tweak enforcement as they see fit. 

In a state that has primacy (such as ND), the EPA stays on the sidelines if a state agency (such as the NDDOH, MN DNR or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) are in place to handle it.  The feds simply would not be welcome by the state and would result in a turf war. 

There are, of course, times where the EPA says a state isn't doing enough to enforce the rules and they can yank primacy and take over the enforcement.  But it would be difficult to believe the state and EPA are both raining on someone's parade over the same topic.  It is possible though that the same person could be running afoul of both the feds and state on different issues.  That would seem to be the most plausible.

Allen as it was merely a conversation to, I can not say whether the EPA was going after him for the same thing the state was or not as there were multiple things that he had to redo and tear apart. All I know is he relayed he had issues with both in our conversation. Perhaps they were differing issues on the same property.

It seems the EPA had no problem "raining" on this fella in Wy. parade and THAT is what is the issue here is it not?

So why would we want to invite orgs that "collaberate" with an agency willing to engage in this type of thing, If the compliance order stands as an example of how EPA intends to operate after completing its current ‘waters of the United States’ rule making, it should give pause to each and every landowner throughout the country,”, such as The Nature Conservancy into our state to change our constitution?

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

 

Allen Said:

eyexer Said:
 

I asked the county about it and they told me no problem.  

Well, by all means you should jump on that then.

Make sure you have a copy of the county's approval at hand when the State shows up.  That should impress the hell out of them.

I think the state has their hands full right now.  

 

weedy1's picture
weedy1
Offline
Joined: 9/26/12

EPA has jurisdiction over fills being placed in waters of the US.  That would include wetlands and waterways.  Typically states also have regulations for fills placed across waterways to store water.  In ND the State Water Commission (SWC) requires a water use permit for certain volumes of water regardless if it is stored behind a embankment dam or in an excavation in or adjacent to the channel (stream, creek, waterway, etc.).   The also permit water volumes pumped out of wells.

Before the water use permit is issued they will determine the impact on downstream users who may already have an existing use permit to ensure the new structure does not cut off the water they have already been allocated.  The SWC will not issue the water permit until an EPA permit has been issued, if they feel it is required.  This keeps the builder from getting into a bind with the feds.  The SWC also submits the permits, whether for water allocation or construction, to the local water resource district (wrd) board that has jurisdiction for review.  The approval of a dam by the local wrd alone is never sufficient to comply with state law.

As mentioned the SWC also has safety regulations that control the construction methods for the embankment depending on height of fill, drainage area above the dam, whether the failure of the dam will damage downstream roads, homes, etc.  So a construction permit may be required in addition to the allocation permit.  In some permits for higher hazard structures the design has to be developed by a licensed engineer. This process hopefully prevents potential damage to downstream areas by poorly planned and constructed earthen fills.

Flood flows can happen if a fill suddenly breaches and releases the water it holds back.  Everyone remembers Garrison Dam in 2011.  Typically a pipe or other structure is needed on larger embankments to safely discharge the volume of water that cannot be held behind the dam.  Fills placed by pushing dirt across a waterway typically have little chance of surviving any flows over their tops and down the front slope.  Pipes also help with the trickle flows that occur during snowmelt.  Water trickling over fills and down slopes can be very erosive once the soil is saturated. 

The 8 acre area of the guys ownership really isn't the issue.  In the right topography you can store a good chunk of water with a fairly short fill from bank to bank across a draw.  The embankment has to well compacted fill and you need to tie into good soils on each embankment.  That still doesn't guarantee the water won't make it's way under, around, or through the fill and cause the dam to fail.

Most everyone would be pretty pissed if someone built a dam upstream that could fail and cause damage to their property.  That damage could be flooding of your home, corrals, outbuildings, etc.  The damage could also be a large volume of sediment that comes from the breached fill and any silt stored in the basin behind the dam that fills the channel through your property.

If you already have a permitted allotment of water you would also be pretty upset if someone built a water storage facility upstream of your property and cut off your flow.

I don't have any problem complying with permit processes that also protect my life and property from some idiot upstream who thinks he can do what he damn well pleases because he owns some plot of land.  Owning land, on a farm , in town, or just out in the open country doe not give anyone the right to negatively impact another person.  

Permit processes are normally developed because some nut decided he wanted to do something that had negative impacts on somebody else.  I have personally investigated dams that have failed because they were improperly built.  The downstream impacts are not pretty.

We license people who practice medicine, practice law, etc.  Why do we do this?  To protect the general population from the negative impacts of some jerk trying to provide these services without control  We issue load permits to protect our roads from damage from over heavy vehicles.  Why is this done?  These permits protect our tax investment from damage by someone who could care less.

The guy in Wyoming is one of those jerks who could care less about what happens to someone else, whether it is his downstream neighbor or the general public.  He is kind of like the people who shoot a gun in the air for gits and shiggles  with no regard to what may happen.  I shed no tears for this poor soul.  He is only thinking of himself!

Weedy

Crackshot.'s picture
Crackshot.
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/09

 

weedy1 Said:
EPA has jurisdiction over fills being placed in waters of the US.  That would include wetlands and waterways.  Typically states also have regulations for fills placed across waterways to store water.  In ND the State Water Commission (SWC) requires a water use permit for certain volumes of water regardless if it is stored behind a embankment dam or in an excavation in or adjacent to the channel (stream, creek, waterway, etc.).   The also permit water volumes pumped out of wells.

Before the water use permit is issued they will determine the impact on downstream users who may already have an existing use permit to ensure the new structure does not cut off the water they have already been allocated.  The SWC will not issue the water permit until an EPA permit has been issued, if they feel it is required.  This keeps the builder from getting into a bind with the feds.  The SWC also submits the permits, whether for water allocation or construction, to the local water resource district (wrd) board that has jurisdiction for review.  The approval of a dam by the local wrd alone is never sufficient to comply with state law.

As mentioned the SWC also has safety regulations that control the construction methods for the embankment depending on height of fill, drainage area above the dam, whether the failure of the dam will damage downstream roads, homes, etc.  So a construction permit may be required in addition to the allocation permit.  In some permits for higher hazard structures the design has to be developed by a licensed engineer. This process hopefully prevents potential damage to downstream areas by poorly planned and constructed earthen fills.

Flood flows can happen if a fill suddenly breaches and releases the water it holds back.  Everyone remembers Garrison Dam in 2011.  Typically a pipe or other structure is needed on larger embankments to safely discharge the volume of water that cannot be held behind the dam.  Fills placed by pushing dirt across a waterway typically have little chance of surviving any flows over their tops and down the front slope.  Pipes also help with the trickle flows that occur during snowmelt.  Water trickling over fills and down slopes can be very erosive once the soil is saturated. 

The 8 acre area of the guys ownership really isn't the issue.  In the right topography you can store a good chunk of water with a fairly short fill from bank to bank across a draw.  The embankment has to well compacted fill and you need to tie into good soils on each embankment.  That still doesn't guarantee the water won't make it's way under, around, or through the fill and cause the dam to fail.

Most everyone would be pretty pissed if someone built a dam upstream that could fail and cause damage to their property.  That damage could be flooding of your home, corrals, outbuildings, etc.  The damage could also be a large volume of sediment that comes from the breached fill and any silt stored in the basin behind the dam that fills the channel through your property.

If you already have a permitted allotment of water you would also be pretty upset if someone built a water storage facility upstream of your property and cut off your flow.

I don't have any problem complying with permit processes that also protect my life and property from some idiot upstream who thinks he can do what he damn well pleases because he owns some plot of land.  Owning land, on a farm , in town, or just out in the open country doe not give anyone the right to negatively impact another person. 
 

Permit processes are normally developed because some nut decided he wanted to do something that had negative impacts on somebody else.  I have personally investigated dams that have failed because they were improperly built.  The downstream impacts are not pretty.

We license people who practice medicine, practice law, etc.  Why do we do this?  To protect the general population from the negative impacts of some jerk trying to provide these services without control  We issue load permits to protect our roads from damage from over heavy vehicles.  Why is this done?  These permits protect our tax investment from damage by someone who could care less.

The guy in Wyoming is one of those jerks who could care less about what happens to someone else, whether it is his downstream neighbor or the general public.  He is kind of like the people who shoot a gun in the air for gits and shiggles  with no regard to what may happen.  I shed no tears for this poor soul.  He is only thinking of himself!

   No different than building codes for a house, motel or any construction project.   They are not implied to make someones life miserable,  They are in place for our protection.  

 

 

 

Life is good
 

 

 

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

weedy1 Said:

The guy in Wyoming is one of those jerks who could care less about what happens to someone else, whether it is his downstream neighbor or the general public.  He is kind of like the people who shoot a gun in the air for gits and shiggles  with no regard to what may happen.  I shed no tears for this poor soul.  He is only thinking of himself!

And you determined this how?

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

 

weedy1 Said:
EPA has jurisdiction over fills being placed in waters of the US.  That would include wetlands and waterways.  Typically states also have regulations for fills placed across waterways to store water.  In ND the State Water Commission (SWC) requires a water use permit for certain volumes of water regardless if it is stored behind a embankment dam or in an excavation in or adjacent to the channel (stream, creek, waterway, etc.).   The also permit water volumes pumped out of wells.

Before the water use permit is issued they will determine the impact on downstream users who may already have an existing use permit to ensure the new structure does not cut off the water they have already been allocated.  The SWC will not issue the water permit until an EPA permit has been issued, if they feel it is required.  This keeps the builder from getting into a bind with the feds.  The SWC also submits the permits, whether for water allocation or construction, to the local water resource district (wrd) board that has jurisdiction for review.  The approval of a dam by the local wrd alone is never sufficient to comply with state law.

As mentioned the SWC also has safety regulations that control the construction methods for the embankment depending on height of fill, drainage area above the dam, whether the failure of the dam will damage downstream roads, homes, etc.  So a construction permit may be required in addition to the allocation permit.  In some permits for higher hazard structures the design has to be developed by a licensed engineer. This process hopefully prevents potential damage to downstream areas by poorly planned and constructed earthen fills.

Flood flows can happen if a fill suddenly breaches and releases the water it holds back.  Everyone remembers Garrison Dam in 2011.  Typically a pipe or other structure is needed on larger embankments to safely discharge the volume of water that cannot be held behind the dam.  Fills placed by pushing dirt across a waterway typically have little chance of surviving any flows over their tops and down the front slope.  Pipes also help with the trickle flows that occur during snowmelt.  Water trickling over fills and down slopes can be very erosive once the soil is saturated. 

The 8 acre area of the guys ownership really isn't the issue.  In the right topography you can store a good chunk of water with a fairly short fill from bank to bank across a draw.  The embankment has to well compacted fill and you need to tie into good soils on each embankment.  That still doesn't guarantee the water won't make it's way under, around, or through the fill and cause the dam to fail.

Most everyone would be pretty pissed if someone built a dam upstream that could fail and cause damage to their property.  That damage could be flooding of your home, corrals, outbuildings, etc.  The damage could also be a large volume of sediment that comes from the breached fill and any silt stored in the basin behind the dam that fills the channel through your property.

If you already have a permitted allotment of water you would also be pretty upset if someone built a water storage facility upstream of your property and cut off your flow.

I don't have any problem complying with permit processes that also protect my life and property from some idiot upstream who thinks he can do what he damn well pleases because he owns some plot of land.  Owning land, on a farm , in town, or just out in the open country doe not give anyone the right to negatively impact another person.  

Permit processes are normally developed because some nut decided he wanted to do something that had negative impacts on somebody else.  I have personally investigated dams that have failed because they were improperly built.  The downstream impacts are not pretty.

We license people who practice medicine, practice law, etc.  Why do we do this?  To protect the general population from the negative impacts of some jerk trying to provide these services without control  We issue load permits to protect our roads from damage from over heavy vehicles.  Why is this done?  These permits protect our tax investment from damage by someone who could care less.

The guy in Wyoming is one of those jerks who could care less about what happens to someone else, whether it is his downstream neighbor or the general public.  He is kind of like the people who shoot a gun in the air for gits and shiggles  with no regard to what may happen.  I shed no tears for this poor soul.  He is only thinking of himself!

so at what volume is a permit required.  I'm guess few if any livestock dam's are permitted.  Even though the SWC issues permits for the amount of water volume being taken out of wells they do not enforce it.  it's strictly the honor system.  Same goes with well pump depth.  If they tell the driller they can't set a pump any deeper than X number of feet, they don't inspect it.  It's the honor system.  This honor system has been given the big middle finger for the past six years in oil country.  That's some mighty big teeth the SWC has

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Geothermal Said:
   No different than building codes for a house, motel or any construction project.   They are not implied to make someones life miserable,  They are in place for our protection.  

That is directly tied to the person enforcing them.

A perfect example is going thru the port of entry. Same person going thru, same purpose, same everything, one time it can be a pleasant experience the next time not so much.

The difference?

The person with the "power" and the level of their ego.

Take this to the level of the EPA, the IRS ect.... and add in radical enviromental or political agendas pushing from inside because of involvement of different orgs...............

Lets be honest here, these agencies have moved beyond simple necessary oversight to pushing ideals and agendas thru enforcement.

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

 

gst Said:

Geothermal Said:
   No different than building codes for a house, motel or any construction project.   They are not implied to make someones life miserable,  They are in place for our protection.  

That is directly tied to the person enforcing them.

A perfect example is going thru the port of entry. Same person going thru, same purpose, same everything, one time it can be a pleasant experience the next time not so much.

The difference?

The person with the "power" and the level of their ego.

Take this to the level of the EPA, the IRS ect.... and add in radical enviromental or political agendas pushing from inside because of involvement of different orgs...............

Lets be honest here, these agencies have moved beyond simple necessary oversight to pushing ideals and agendas thru enforcement.

just like when I was a kid.  used to come through the U.S. side of the Northgate port every weekend.  Would get interrogated by my neighbor whom I mowed his lawn every week or so.  Look at me like he's never seen me before and ask my name and where I was from.  As a young lad I sure that the guy must have been a total dip shit

 

weedy1's picture
weedy1
Offline
Joined: 9/26/12

In reply to eyexer's question the SWC permit requirements kick in at 12 and 1/2 acre feet of water stored or diverted.  A quick estimate can be made by taking the surface area x maximum depth x 1/3.  So a 2 acre pond with a maximum depth of 15 feet would store approximately 10 acre feet,  With seepage and dry summers most ranchers who run herds in pastures shoot for structures of this size if their topography allows.  Fish ponds built by individuals are typically larger than this.  Looking at the photo of the Wyoming welder's reservoir it is hard tell how large it is.  But if he is raising trout in it, the depth probably exceeds 15 feet, or winter kill would be a very common occurrence.  Have no idea if Montana's regs line up with those in ND,

I agree there is limited enforcement of wells in the NW part of ND.  This is due to limited SWC staff to check on what is going on.  Similar to the drill sock issue that has raised it's ugly head and the Health Dept. trying to keep up with that problem, oil spills, train derailments, solid waste dumping, fracking issues, and animal feedlots all at the same time.  Enforcement resources only stretch so far.

A lot of farm ponds can be built without SWC permits due to the smaller size.  There is a notification process that does impact smaller ponds.  The SWC requires this to avoid having to go out and inspect structures when they receive a complaint.  If the construction notification is properly filed with the required information, the SWC can just inform the complaining party that the structure does not fall under their jurisdiction.  Saves a lot of man power!

However, if more than 10 cubic yards of fill material is placed in an area identified as a wetland than  a consult with the Corps of Engineers who administer EPA regulations of the 404 Clean Water Act is a wise move.  If you excavate a pit to trap water as it passes through an area you also need to be aware that the action could be determined to negatively impact a wetland directly downstream.  This also would kick 404 regs into effect.

Hope my limited knowledge of SWC permit info helps.  Montana's situation could be a lot different, but EPA is EPA anywhere in the country.  The Wyoming guy either had to excavate a hell of a hole to store the water depicted in the picture or had to place some fill in a water course to dam it up.  With the size of reservoir shown and the ability to hold enough deep water to sustain fish it is a pretty good chance the project would have been in a water course falling under COE or 404 permit requirements.  Sounds like the Montana agency in charge of water or construction permits missed an opportunity to provide guidance to the welder on 404 regulations.  I am sure they are not going to admit it now that fines may be imposed.

Ignorance is Bliss until it costs you something!

Weedy

weedy1's picture
weedy1
Offline
Joined: 9/26/12

gst Said:

weedy1 Said:

The guy in Wyoming is one of those jerks who could care less about what happens to someone else, whether it is his downstream neighbor or the general public.  He is kind of like the people who shoot a gun in the air for gits and shiggles  with no regard to what may happen.  I shed no tears for this poor soul.  He is only thinking of himself!

And you determined this how?

Sorry gst I may have jumped to a conclusion.  Perhaps it was hasty to call the guy in Wyoming a jerk.  I am sure a welder and his wife are perfectly capable of building a safe embankment dam on their property.  They certainly have the credentials.  It is their land and they should be able to do anything they want, right?

Thanks for not accusing me of being an environmental extremist, liar, stating a bullshit claim, being dishonest, fricking stupid, idiotic, or any other of the many descriptions you typically use when someone has a differing point of view from your own.

I must admit, I had a former supervisor who described me as being argumentative and condescending.  I guess I would have to agree with him, as I do tend to disagree with stupid people.  Sorry if that stung gst, but I thought I should use at least one of your famous descriptive adjectives to describe someone who doesn't think like me.

I guess after reconsideration and finding out you are standing up for the Wyoming welder, I must have better than a 50/50 chance of being correct on my first evaluation.

By the way gst, the FB initials for this internet network do stand for "Fishing Buddy".  You seem quite often to have it confused with FARM BUREAU.  Same initials, I can easily see how this could happen.  The Bureau folks are nice people too and I am sure they would appreciate your point of view.  Maybe you should check them out and provide them with your keen insight.  Please don't use your harsh language around them, they may not be as forgiving.

Weedy

cynical's picture
cynical
Offline
Joined: 10/27/04

Interesting situation.  I wonder if the State of WY ever told the guy he needs a UCACOE permit?  If not why not?

"The only enemy of guns is rust and politicians."

"The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry."

William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Unarmed helplessness is for sheep and the French."  Ted Nugent

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
 -Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson

 

 

Pages