EPA Fines Man $16 Million for Building a Pond on His Own Property

Joshua Krause | Comments (19) | Reader Views (5468)

epa pond

Back in May I wrote about a rule change that the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers want to implement, that would threaten the property rights of just about every landowner in America. They are planning to amend the definition of “waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act, ostensibly to protect our waterways from pollution. Previously, that term referred to rivers, lakes, and even some ponds, but now it could include just about anything. It could be a ditch on your property, or even a slight depression on the land that only contains water for certain times of the year. The new rule is so broad that if you have a large puddle on your property, you’ll probably have to consult the EPA before you make any changes to the land.

To give you an idea of what we’re in for, consider the case of Andy Johnson, a Wyoming landowner who decided to build a pond on his property to feed his livestock. Now he’s in big trouble with the EPA, and it could ruin his livelihood. Keep in mind that everything that has happened to him occurred before the EPA decided to broaden their definition of ‘water.’ I can’t imagine how bad things will get with the new rule change.

Ā Fortunately, the EPA’s policy was challenged just hours before it was supposed to take effect on August 28th. Judge Ralph Erickson of the District Court for the District of North Dakota filed an injunction on the behalf 13 states that are currently suing the EPA. The Obama administration and the EPA plan to follow through and enforce the policy on the remaining states that haven’t joined the lawsuit.

Hopefully this tyrannical policy will ultimately be discarded when the states have their day in court. America is supposed to be the land of the free, not the home of the bureaucrats.

This article was published at Ready Nutrition on Sep 2, 2015

19 thoughts on “EPA Fines Man $16 Million for Building a Pond on His Own Property”

  1. Rednecks are going to have to learn, the resources are here for EVERYBODY, not just for you to use, pollute and then pass on to the rest of us.

        1. It’s feels good to be so well understood. Thank you, SFWP. But I still can’t help resenting isnamthere’s breathing O2 that was clearly meant for you and me. How dare he pollute OUR atmosphere with his CO2! Some people don’t know when to stop.

    1. StarFireWarriorPrincess

      YOU WANT FOOD ON YOUR PLATE AT THE DINNER TABLE?
      PLANTS AND ANIMALS REQUIRE WATER TO GROW.
      PONDS ARE PART OF THAT WATER SUPPLY.
      LEAVE US ALONE, BITCH!

      1. Because in these states, there is not enough water for everyone to build their own pond. His pond takes up his neighbors water.
        How would you feel if a neighbor’s pond sucks up your water? That’s the way it is in the dry west.

        1. Do you have any idea how much water runs off of your roof during a rain storm? Most likely not but during a heavy rainstorm a roof can average 20,000 gallons.
          Think about that for a moment and then multiply that by the amount an average acre would receive.

          Then calculate how much water NESTLE pumped out of California’s aquifers to sell and NESTLE only paid $547 over how many years of bottling? Meanwhile Nestle pumps 99 MILLION gallons out of the Great Lakes every year and bottles it tp be shipped and sold overseas….

          Please THINK and learn and DO RESEARCH….

          1. StarFireWarriorPrincess

            THE PLACE I LIVE IS FULLY OFF GRID. I HARVEST ALL THE WATER I CAN.
            AND I DON’T BUY NESTLE BOTTLED WATER.
            AND I’VE BEEN THINKING AND LEARNING AND RESEARCHING FOR THE LAST COUPLE DOZEN OF YEARS.
            AND I’D JUST AS SOON NOT FUSS AT YOU SINCE I HAVE ONE OF THOSE PURPLE THINGS (TO BE OH SO PROUD OF {NOT!}), TOO.

          2. Purple things??? I have a 6,000 gallon cistern that has never gone empty in 23 years. I have rain barrels too. I never buy anything Nestle. Been researching since I got out of the service in 96.

    2. Oh, you mean those rednecks that supply use with vegetables and meat? The real polluters are the big corporations that these EPA regulations do not affect. Can’t you see they are just taking more and more liberties from us? The great majority of these cases being brought on private citizens do not effect anyone or anything negatively. Don’t be a government boot-licker.

    3. I am trying to figure out what red necks has to do with the subject? Are you saying the farmer was wrong and the EPA is right?
      Which would then make me ask, do you even have aq clue or an education regarding the subject whatsoever or are you just running on ASS – sumption?

      DO you even have a clue as to the purpose and actual legalities of the EPA, what their responsibilities actually entail?

  2. Hey give them a break, the EPA is just trying to round up a few billion to cover the costs of their incredidle incompetence resulting in the massive toxic spill in the Animas River in Colorado

      1. I agree with the story…i just thought it was pathetically short for such a big headline.
        And you don’t need to scream to get your point across. You sound like my loud mouth ex-wife.

        1. StarFireWarriorPrincess

          AND, PER YOUR COMPARISON TO YOUR EX-WIFE’S LOUD MOUTH…. THAT PROBABLY HAD SOME AMOUNT OF FUNCTION EARLY ON, BUT NOW, NOT SO MUCH.

          AND AS FOR ME, I AM VISUALLY IMPAIRED.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top