Author Topic: Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property  (Read 1102 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,877
If the left has its way with the EPA, the day will soon come when you won't be able to drill a well on your own property without government approval...

Online truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,995
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
    • The place where argument addicts can go
A very good example for election time, about democrats having control of things.

FYI since the article failed to give the location, --it is just off Hwy. 80 in southwest Wyoming, between Evanston and Rock Springs.
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
A very good example for election time, about democrats having control of things.

FYI since the article failed to give the location, --it is just off Hwy. 80 in southwest Wyoming, between Evanston and Rock Springs.

Unfortunately SCOTUS is as much to blame for all of this as anyone.  remember this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040200487.html

This case  turned the EPA loose to do the Environmentalists bidding.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 48,259
  • TBR Illuminati
Unfortunately SCOTUS is as much to blame for all of this as anyone.  remember this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040200487.html

This case  turned the EPA loose to do the Environmentalists bidding.

This has nothing to do with regulating greenhouse gases, so the Supreme Court's rulings have nothing to do with this instance of heavyhandedness.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
This has nothing to do with regulating greenhouse gases, so the Supreme Court's rulings have nothing to do with this instance of heavyhandedness.

Ever since that hearing EPA has been running out of control and getting involved where they do not belong getting involved - they actually have used SCOTUS for their excuse... however we have a case pending with the court right now that may reign them in a bit, we'll see if it works or not,

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 48,259
  • TBR Illuminati
Ever since that hearing EPA has been running out of control and getting involved where they do not belong getting involved - they actually have used SCOTUS for their excuse... however we have a case pending with the court right now that may reign them in a bit, we'll see if it works or not,

they've been getting out of control for ages.  where do you think all aspiring greenie wanna-be lawyers want to go; to the EPA where they can finally force people to do what they think they should do.

Blaming it on just one Supreme Court case is essentially admitting that the EPA was perfectly sane immediately before that ruling came out, thereby excusing all of the objectionable behaviour that came before and that really led to this nonsense.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
My point, which has been obfuscated, is this did not start under Obana as TS intimsted.. Its been getting progreddively worse as they've bern emboldened.  this couple are only a long line of families the EPA had gone after in the last ten or more  years.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 48,259
  • TBR Illuminati
My point, which has been obfuscated, is this did not start under Obana as TS intimsted.. Its been getting progreddively worse as they've bern emboldened.  this couple are only a long line of families the EPA had gone after in the last ten or more  years.

Then why fasten on one single Supreme Court decision from 2007?  That simply undercuts your argument, it certainly doesn't bolster it.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Then why fasten on one single Supreme Court decision from 2007?  That simply undercuts your argument, it certainly doesn't bolster it.

Simply as one example of this going back well before Obama...... in fact all the way back to 1984 another case  under Reagan was Chevron USA vs Natural ResourcesDefense Council........ 

Quote
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The case raised the issue of how courts should treat agency interpretations of statutes that mandated that agency to take some action. The Supreme Court held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of such statutes unless they are unreasonable.

This is what TS stated:

Quote
A very good example for election time, about democrats having control of things.

It doesn't matter who is in the WH - no one has reigned in the EPA......  even Even Christine Todd Whitman  who ran the EPA under Bush said repeadely the EPA has "broad authority" to interpret the Clean Air Act.

There's a lot of reasons not to vote for Democrats, the EPA isn't one of them as both parties seem to love the EPA.


« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 12:10:19 AM by Rapunzel »

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 48,259
  • TBR Illuminati
The Supreme Court's holding in Chevron is the only reasonable position to take; otherwise the courts would be involved in rewriting every last little regulation each and every time that regulation was challenged in court.  That would be an untenable, unworkeable situation.  It also dovetails with the Administrative Procedures Act, which does provide for a whole list of things an agency must do in order to render its rule making defensible, and is oftentimes the best way to go about attacking a regulation or regulatory action.

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,836
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Can someone actually explain what has the EPA's panties in a bunch here?

It's a pond. It doesn't divert water from anywhere else, it merely holds it for a short period of time.
It's clean. If the brown trout are surviving in it, the water is clean, since they are notoriously sensitive to pollution.
It has the relevant state permits.
It, like all ponds, encourages and fosters wildlife and a more complex local ecosystem.

Where's the beef?
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Because they can.

They are pulling crap like this all over the country.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf