US Politics Mega-thread - Page 941

On March 18 2014 05:26 BallinWitStalin wrote:


Now, I can't comment on the specifics about his individual case because I don't know much about it, but here's the thing: from an initial reading of the article, this guy is a perfect example of why it makes sense to have regulations governing this sort of thing. Water is a common resource, as are recreationally harvested natural populations. Managing water quality is a complex thing, and the spread of invasive species is only one example on why it's important to regulate the creation of artificial water bodies. The EPA is claiming that water is discharging from this pond into streams. Water originating from an artificial pond is probably likely to have quite a high sediment load, particularly during high water events. While one artificial pond flowing into a natural stream might not have a large impact, what it ten people built these ponds? Twenty? One hundred? Coupled with issues like agricultural run-off (since this dude has a farm, it's likely to be a particular problem from this pond) or forestry run-off, you could have a significant sedimentation problem in the stream/river, which could wipe out fish species (and, since I know you probably only value things you can put a price tag on, let me emphasize valuable recreational fish species).

I know you hate all government regulation with a passion that borders on absurdity, but this dude is stocking non-native invasive fish species in his pond (although this itself might be legal in his state, sometimes states have fucked up laws on the books regarding recreational fisheries). If that pond is not up to proper code and the stocked pond is not completely isolated, and the fish are capable of breeding in it, those fish will escape into adjacent water bodies, where they may possibly spread to the entire watershed. Cause, you know, they are "invasive" and that's what they do. Stopping alevins/fry (i.e. extremely small juveniles), let alone adult trout, from escaping a contained environment is a really fucking hard thing to do.

I mean Jesus Christ, he also actually dammed up a natural water body, too! Those things have actual impacts on the environmental integrity of the stream, ranging from population fragmentation to increased sedimentation.

It makes sense to limit these things and regulate them. Again, I'm not sure about the specifics, maybe he was up to state code, but what if he is in a watershed that crosses state borders (which is basically 100% guaranteed)? Then the EPA is (or at least should be) the appropriate managing body, and he should be applying to them for a permit. Maybe this isn't the recognized protocol, but then that's an issue of allocating management to the appropriate government regime. The management itself is not the problem. Maybe the EPA are being harsh on this guy (those are pretty harsh fines and pretty strict time-frames), but managing water bodies is an important function. What one person does can impact everyone downstream, and the actions of multiple individuals can have a strong negative cumulative effect.

On March 18 2014 05:26 BallinWitStalin wrote:


Now, I can't comment on the specifics about his individual case because I don't know much about it, but here's the thing: from an initial reading of the article, this guy is a perfect example of why it makes sense to have regulations governing this sort of thing. Water is a common resource, as are recreationally harvested natural populations. Managing water quality is a complex thing, and the spread of invasive species is only one example on why it's important to regulate the creation of artificial water bodies. The EPA is claiming that water is discharging from this pond into streams. Water originating from an artificial pond is probably likely to have quite a high sediment load, particularly during high water events. While one artificial pond flowing into a natural stream might not have a large impact, what it ten people built these ponds? Twenty? One hundred? Coupled with issues like agricultural run-off (since this dude has a farm, it's likely to be a particular problem from this pond) or forestry run-off, you could have a significant sedimentation problem in the stream/river, which could wipe out fish species (and, since I know you probably only value things you can put a price tag on, let me emphasize valuable recreational fish species).

I know you hate all government regulation with a passion that borders on absurdity, but this dude is stocking non-native invasive fish species in his pond (although this itself might be legal in his state, sometimes states have fucked up laws on the books regarding recreational fisheries). If that pond is not up to proper code and the stocked pond is not completely isolated, and the fish are capable of breeding in it, those fish will escape into adjacent water bodies, where they may possibly spread to the entire watershed. Cause, you know, they are "invasive" and that's what they do. Stopping alevins/fry (i.e. extremely small juveniles), let alone adult trout, from escaping a contained environment is a really fucking hard thing to do.

I mean Jesus Christ, he also actually dammed up a natural water body, too! Those things have actual impacts on the environmental integrity of the stream, ranging from population fragmentation to increased sedimentation.

It makes sense to limit these things and regulate them. Again, I'm not sure about the specifics, maybe he was up to state code, but what if he is in a watershed that crosses state borders (which is basically 100% guaranteed)? Then the EPA is (or at least should be) the appropriate managing body, and he should be applying to them for a permit. Maybe this isn't the recognized protocol, but then that's an issue of allocating management to the appropriate government regime. The management itself is not the problem. Maybe the EPA are being harsh on this guy (those are pretty harsh fines and pretty strict time-frames), but managing water bodies is an important function. What one person does can impact everyone downstream, and the actions of multiple individuals can have a strong negative cumulative effect.

On March 18 2014 05:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:


The state agency gave approval. He submitted a plan and presumably followed it. States might have bad laws or lax enforcement but that applies with the same force to the EPA and the rest of the federal government as well. The EPA did not prove he dammed up a natural water body, it asserted and argued that in its letter to him. A letter from 2 US Senators to the EPA claims that the EPA should prove that he constructed a dam, so I would guess that the guy provided information he said would show it is not a dam and there is room for disagreement here. I would hope that the EPA got a copy of the plans he submitted to the state before it sent off this letter.

You're packing a huge amount of assumptions into your post, you don't know if his stream affects a watershed crossing state borders, or that he actually built a dam and not a stock pond, you didn't know that he got approval from the appropriate state agency, you don't know if this guy is a farmer - he's a welder, so what are the chances that this is a working, crop-producing farm?

You start from the assumption that the EPA is correct and this guy built a probably crappy dam and then sprint far and wide from there. The state government signed off on it and if the EPA wants to say it was wrong the EPA should prove it not force the guy to spend money to prove it isn't. And it shouldn't threaten daily five-figure fines, what happened to the 8th Amendment "...nor excessive fines imposed..."

On March 18 2014 06:11 TheFish7 wrote:
The senate findings pdf indicates that he began construction before ever applying for a permit, and that "pollutants" from his pond thing were ending up in another river flowing downstream. The army corps of engineers, who requested plans from him, say he failed to provide them upon request. Discharge from this guy's pond caused them to have to do work on a nearby creek.The Corps only referred the matter to the EPA after this all went down. The supposed threats are quoted from Johnson in the original article, so we'll have to take his word for it that they were made.

On March 18 2014 06:49 IgnE wrote:
It's pretty risky to post a Fox news source article as the kernel of a rant, Danglars. My response was the same as Kwark's, and I'm surprised you were uncritical enough to take it at face value. Fox news loves posting stories of crotchety conservatives out on their western land angry that they can't do whatever they want out in the wild wild west. Oh, he's damming up a stream that's part of an interstate watershed? Well details be damned. You should know better.

On March 18 2014 06:22 Sub40APM wrote:
So there you go Danglers, the system works. An an aggressive property thief who stole the water rights of all his neighbors below him has been punished.

“EPA appears more interested in intimidating and bankrupting Mr. Johnson than it does in working cooperatively with him,” the senators noted of the severe fines Johnson faces. “…Fairness and due process require that EPA base its Compliance Order on more than an assumption. Instead of treating Mr. Johnson as guilty until he proves his innocence by demonstrating his entitlement to the Clean Water Act section 404(f)(1)(C) stock pond exemption, EPA should make its case that a dam was built and that the Section 404 exemption does not apply. As it stands now, EPA’s failure to demonstrate in detail how Mr. Johnson’s building activities constituted the construction of a dam prejudices his opportunity to meaningfully respond to the Compliance Order.”

“We are skeptical of the Compliance Order’s claim that Six Mile Creek—into which Mr. Johnson allegedly discharged dredged and fill material— ‘is and was at all relevant times a waters of the United States’,” the senators continued. “…EPA has an obligation to more fully support its claim that Six Mile Creek is a jurisdictional water. If instead 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.”

On March 18 2014 05:35 Mindcrime wrote:
epw.senate.gov has a fucking pdf of a the findings of violation in the case available freely over the internet and that fox news editorialist didn't even bother to mention it, let alone provide a link. Holy fuck, what shitty journalism.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=b5d11bd4-7c08-4ecb-8c2f-6fd819ca9be7

More than 5 million people have signed up for health care plans under the newly created Obamacare insurance exchanges, according to a Monday press release from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

According to the release, "the last several days have been the busiest since December, with the Call Center taking more than 198,000 calls on Thursday alone -- the busiest day since December 23 -- and more than 130,000 calls over the weekend."

The 5 million figure comes on March 17, meaning that there have been roughly 800,000 enrollments in the last 17 days. That's a pace of 50,000 or so enrollments a day, which would put the administration on pace to hit 5.7 million by the end of the month.

However, it is expected that the pace of sign ups will increase even more the closer the final enrollment date of March 31 approaches.

On March 18 2014 06:10 BallinWitStalin wrote:


1: Ignorance of the law is not an excuse (although it should impact sentencing and repercussions in some circumstances, including probably this one). If the EPA had jurisdiction, he should have applied to them. There is a presumption of guilt here that might be problematic, but if the EPA reports there is an artificial dam (which they did in the link posted after my initial post) then there's probably an artificial dam. Also, the modifications detailed in that report seem pretty extensive. The EPA probably wouldn't be taking this action if they thought they could be sued afterwards for pulling shit out of their ass :/

2: The watershed does 100% cross state borders (see the link provided above). The EPA therefore has jurisdiction.

3: It says in the article itself the dude owns an eight acre farm :/. If there is cultivated land, it's likely there's sedimentary run-off, even if it's not a commercial farm.

4: I already said the fines seemed a bit excessive. The point stands that the dude probably is in the wrong here, and the EPA is acting for justifiable, good reasons. Toning down the fines might be appropriate, but if this dude acted in the wrong they need to compel compliance somehow :/

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — Duke Energy was in a bind.

North Carolina regulators had for years allowed the nation's largest power company to pollute the ground near its plants without penalty. But in early 2013, a coalition of environmental groups sued to force Duke to clean up nearly three dozen leaky coal ash dumps spread across the state.

So last summer, Duke Energy turned to North Carolina lawmakers for help.

Documents and interviews collected by The Associated Press show how Duke's lobbyists prodded Republican legislators to tuck a 330-word provision in a regulatory reform bill running nearly 60 single-spaced pages. Though the bill never once mentions coal ash, the change allowed Duke to avoid any costly cleanup of contaminated groundwater leaching from its unlined dumps toward rivers, lakes and the drinking wells of nearby homeowners.

Passed overwhelmingly by the GOP-controlled legislature, the bill was signed into law by Gov. Pat McCrory, a pro-business Republican who worked at Duke for 28 years.

On March 18 2014 08:16 Danglars wrote:
Maybe if they hadn't tried to use a Clean Water Act regulation (and associated pond exception), you'd have a point here, Seb40.

So his Six Mile Creek is a tributary of a river which is a tributary of another river that is a navigable interstate water. This is pretty rich. He changed a "40-foot reach of the creek" too. Oh god. Call the police.

On March 18 2014 08:26 oneofthem wrote:
lol you take issue with the word 'finding' when the report cited nothing but factual information? is any part of it wrong?

On March 18 2014 11:00 BallinWitStalin wrote:


This is the only part I'm going to bother responding to, because the rest is kind of silly (not that this isn't silly either, this is just a common mistake people make in their logic when arguing about this sort of thing). You seem to be making the argument "well it's just a small pond, who cares". You are correct in that one pond probably isn't going to make a big deal. But then his neighbor looks at it and says "hey, I want one of those too". And then another person installs a pond, and another, and pretty soon Joe everybody who can afford it has a pond disrupting a stream, and the river/watershed is fucked. Watershed development in that regard is all or nothing, you can't piecemeal let people manipulate waterways however the fuck they want on their own property, because if everyone did then the waterway will be damaged/destroyed. Either everybody can build one (and the stream/river gets screwed), or nobody can, that's just the only sensible way to make it work.

I can get into the scientific reasons why doing this sort of thing is bad, but I'd rather not, if you're interested in the impacts of artificial stream manipulation and damming on flooding, native fauna, etc. just google it, it's a well studied issue. Then again, you probably don't like environmental scientists, why trust those nutjobs anyways?

You can talk about innocent before proven guilty, appeals processes, etc. all you want, but if he's doing something that is deemed to be damaging to the environment the agency will deal with it, that's how it goes. I am sure he would be capable of challenging it in court, getting a temporary stay on the "fines" or whatever, and then when the courts found that he built a dam they'd be like "pay up" and he's fucked. I think that it's likely there's a dam there violating regulations. If there wasn't something there violating important regulations and the EPA did this, then they could probably get sued for a shitpile of money and it would look really bad. Maybe they did fuck up, maybe they don't have jurisdiction (they should, though, the watershed is interstate so that basically settles it in my mind, it would be fucking retarded to let upstream states with shit environmental regulations ruins rivers for downstream states). But then again, there's people who will jump on anything the government does and argue that it's bad.

Links from fox news and other related sites that have slogans like "Free minds, free markets" are probably not the best sources of information on the issue, and probably have a lot of ideological bandwagoning cluttering their information :/

“EPA appears more interested in intimidating and bankrupting Mr. Johnson than it does in working cooperatively with him,” the senators noted of the severe fines Johnson faces. “…Fairness and due process require that EPA base its Compliance Order on more than an assumption. Instead of treating Mr. Johnson as guilty until he proves his innocence by demonstrating his entitlement to the Clean Water Act section 404(f)(1)(C) stock pond exemption, EPA should make its case that a dam was built and that the Section 404 exemption does not apply. As it stands now, EPA’s failure to demonstrate in detail how Mr. Johnson’s building activities constituted the construction of a dam prejudices his opportunity to meaningfully respond to the Compliance Order.”

“We are skeptical of the Compliance Order’s claim that Six Mile Creek—into which Mr. Johnson allegedly discharged dredged and fill material— ‘is and was at all relevant times a waters of the United States’,” the senators continued. “…EPA has an obligation to more fully support its claim that Six Mile Creek is a jurisdictional water. If instead 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.”

On March 18 2014 08:16 Danglars wrote:
The standards are pretty low with TPM and HuffPo frequently cited here, and I knew others would dredge up (no pun intended) the EPA defending its actions. I take extreme issue to Mindcrime and TheFish7 amongst others characterizing it as the "findings of violation" as if the Senate itself ran an investigation! It's the EPA giving its best response to why it cited and threatened penalties and fines to a Senate Committee. It's expected to defend its actions and it did so. Calling it 'findings' gives it a mist of credibility, when in fact its just one sector of the agency forwarding on the information to their higher-ups