Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property

/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #1  

/pine

Super Star Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
15,763
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.

的 have not paid them a dime nor will I, a defiant Johnson told FoxNews.com. 的 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.

But Johnson may be in for a rude awakening.

The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, the EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other waterways. Johnson says he built a stock pond -- a man-made pond meant to attract wildlife -- which is exempt from Clean Water Act regulations.

The property owner says he followed the state rules for a stock pond when he built it in 2012 and has an April 4-dated letter from the Wyoming State Engineer痴 Office to prove it.

鉄aid permit is in good standing and is entitled to be exercised exactly as permitted, the state agency letter to Johnson said.

But the EPA isn稚 backing down and argues they have final say over the issue. They also say Johnson needs to restore the land or face the fines.

Johnson plans to fight. 典his goes a lot further than a pond, he said. 的t痴 about a person痴 rights. I have three little kids. I am not going to roll over and let [the government] tell me what I can do on my land. I followed the rules.

Johnson says he was 澱ombarded by hopelessness when he first received the administrative order from the EPA. He then turned to state lawmakers who fast-tracked his pleas to Wyoming痴 two U.S. senators, John Barrasso and Mike Enzi, and Louisiana Sen. David Vitter.

The Republican lawmakers sent a March 12 letter to Nancy Stoner, the EPA痴 acting assistant administration for water, saying they were 鍍roubled by Johnson痴 case and demanding the EPA withdraw the compliance order.

*ather than a sober administration of the Clean Water Act, the Compliance Order reads like a draconian edict of a heavy-handed bureaucracy, the letter states.

The EPA order on Jan. 30 gave Johnson 30 days to hire a consultant and have him or her assess the impact of the supposed unauthorized discharges. The report was also supposed to include a restoration proposal to be approved by the EPA as well as contain a schedule requiring all work be completed within 60 days of the plan's approval.

If Johnson doesn稚 comply -- and he hasn't so far -- he痴 subject to $37,500 per day in civil penalties as well as another $37,500 per day in fines for statutory violations.

The senators' letter questioned the argument that Johnson built a dam and not a stock pond.

擢airness and due process require the EPA base its compliance order on more than an assumption, they wrote. 的nstead 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.

The EPA told FoxNews.com that it is reviewing the senators' letter. "We will carefully evaluate any additional information received, and all of the facts regarding this case," a spokeswoman for the agency said.

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. 的f the compliance order stands as an example of how EPA intends to operate after completing its current 層aters of the United States rulemaking, it should give pause to each and every landowner throughout the country, the letter states.

For now, the matter remains unresolved. Johnson says he痴 not budging and there痴 been no indication from the EPA they will withdraw the compliance order.

Regardless of the outcome, Johnson says his legal fight with the government agency is a teachable moment for his kids

典his is showing them that they shouldn稚 back down, Johnson said. 的f you need to stand up and fight, you do it.
Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property | Fox News
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #2  
Infuriating, isn't it? Even if he had NOT complied with local protocols & permits, and he freaking DID, that project does absolutely nothing but improve conditions of the stream he dammed by creating flood control, fire protection, wildlife watering and habitat and enhancing ground water.

Gawd, I hate small-minded, power-hungry bureaucrats. :mad:
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #3  
It seems the issue revolves around:
1) did he build a dam on a stream?
2) has his pond become a point source of pollution?

The photo in the link doesn't show the stream or alleged dam. Or any details about the area hydrology. Really poor reporting.
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #4  
I know how Mr Johnson must feel. I have a five acre lake on my property-NO, I didn't build it. I wanted to construct a rock barricade at the outlet so I could raise the lake level a little and control the escapement in late summer/early fall. The permitting process I would have to go thru completely discouraged this project. AND there is no stream involved and the entire lake is contained within my ownership. I got quite hostile with the gov representative and questioned his agencies authority over what I did on my property. I finally realized - due to our animosity- this project would never be approved. There must be special "stupid animosity training" for gov officials.









---- and the day came when they fought like warrior-poets and won their FREEDOM ------
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #5  
"Bureaucracy, our most important product!"
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #6  
I wanted to make a duck pond up here and went to the township about it. They kept insisting that it was a swimming pool which would need to have a 6' fence all the way around with only one entrance and exit point. I told them that the only animals that would be 'swimming' in it would be ducks. I would also need a life saving ring posted on it. As if one of the ducks could throw it if need be. :)
Project was put on the back burner. They lose on the permit fees and the increased taxes they could have charged me.
I will be damned if I will kiss their azzes to put that pond on MY property that I own outright.
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #7  
The government agencies get extremely testy with anything involving surface water (After all they "own" it). There are many, many permit hurdles and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Just because one agency signed off on the project (The letter he got) does not mean another agency gave THEIR approval for the project. These agencies have overlapping boundaries that make things nice and simple. God forbid you didn't give them their chance to foul up your project; they missed out on the work for their people, not to mention the ability to slow your work down. It almost sounds like the Army Corps of Engineers might end up getting involved if the stream is "navigable".



I deal with the agencies alot and the permit conditions we have to put in to get out work done is insane. Avoiding streams and wetlands to stay out of their jurisdiction is definitely the way to go to avoid any oversight by the agencies. I really feel bad that a landowner attempted to do the right thing and got hammered for it. Many landowners think they are doing something beneficial and in reality are not. Personally, I think the agencies should take a look at the actual impact and get over it. Making this landowner take out the structure is most likely going to cause more environmental harm than just leaving it alone. It really sounds like he took his time constructing it but I'd be curious to see some pictures.
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #8  
What about the ponds that are built to invoke commerce? Like for a cattle operation?
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #9  
A dozen years or so ago when I lived in CA, a buddy of mine had some land in the SF East Bay area. He wanted a pond and knew that there was no way he could ever get permission to build it legally. He was also a retired City Manager and had some experience with public office. He enjoyed fighting the system and the different government agencies. His solution was to build it and then claim it had always been there, but it had fallen into disrepair and he was just cleaning it up. Turns out that nobody could prove otherwise, and after awhile, they gave up. We had fun with it because the different agencies that came out to his land all new he was messing with them, but couldn't prove it. Then they tried a few favorite CA tricks like saying that he damaged habitat for endangered species, like a certain type of salamander. He turned it around on them and made them conduct surveys that ended up proving that none of the endangered animals on their list existed on his land.

A client that used to live here, but moved to FL a few years ago was in charge of water quality in the two counties north of me. He told me that he investigated reports of people draining stuff into creeks and then went after them to clean up the pollution or whatever it was they where doing. I asked him what he did to those who didn't comply and he said there wasn't anything he could do. It's a toothless agency that relies on threats of fines and criminal charges without an legal ability to actually enforce anything.

Obviously this wont work for the guy in Wyoming, which is too bad because there is nothing better then winning a fight against a government agency!!!

Eddie
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #10  
I am reading a book about living on boats. I just finished a section about pulling a boat out of the water and getting repairs down in a boat yard. One of the tid bits of information that was in the book is that the EPA no longer allows owners to CLEAN or PAINT the bottom of their boats. I quote the book,
(It is important to note that in 2009, the Federal Government no longer permits private owners to clean and repaint their own hulls. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that only professional personnel trained in the disposal of environmentally sensitive hull paint, will be permitted to bottom paint a vessel.)

Later,
Dan
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #11  
In south west Australia I bought my property 20+ years ago. I wrote to the relevant authorities about damming a winter only creek. I was told they did not care. I had a dam excavated. End of story. I now have a 4 acre dam and no problems with any part of local or state government.

This is how it should be.

weedpharma
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #12  
What if a person needed some dirt for a project and removed said dirt from there own land. The place the dirt was removed from filled with water and turned into a pond.:D
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #13  
In theory the EPA has a legitimate reason to exist. We all want clean air and water. However, it has become a rogue bureaucracy with 17,000 full-time employees who need something to do to justify their jobs. A complete overhaul is needed.
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #14  
The edict does sound a bit draconian to me. It's hard to comment when you don't know the full details like who might be afected if a "dam" failed. I hope the investigation ends favorably for the landowner.
Had a neighbor that faced a similar situation about 25 years ago. He was told to cut 8' off of the top of his dam and line it to prevent erosion. He was ticked too until he lowered the water level and saw the erosion on his earth dam. He worked with the govt and was lucky enough to get some concrete sections of highway that were being replaced to line his dam. The lake is still there.
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #15  
In south west Australia I bought my property 20+ years ago. I wrote to the relevant authorities about damming a winter only creek. I was told they did not care. I had a dam excavated. End of story. I now have a 4 acre dam and no problems with any part of local or state government.

This is how it should be.

weedpharma

Agreed. I you folks had a Second Amendment I'd consider moving there.
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #16  
In south west Australia I bought my property 20+ years ago. I wrote to the relevant authorities about damming a winter only creek. I was told they did not care. I had a dam excavated. End of story. I now have a 4 acre dam and no problems with any part of local or state government.

This is how it should be.

weedpharma


Bet that is not the case NOW as your government has gotten as out of hand as OURS has in last 20 years...

In theory the EPA has a legitimate reason to exist. We all want clean air and water. However, it has become a rogue bureaucracy with 17,000 full-time employees who need something to do to justify their jobs. A complete overhaul is needed.


I would say ALL of government HAD a use but most of it has become a self sustaining blaze that is eating up the Oxygen of Free Will and FREEDOM we all ONCE HAD.

Just read article today how IG (Inspector General) ran thru the EPA GAO credit cards finding of their sample 90% were fraudulent purchases. see here

EPA Bureaucrats Paint the Town Red with Federal Charge Cards - Justin Sykes - Page 1

I'm sure the same can be said of the IRS and just about ANY Government agency who uses their power in government to force others to bend to their will and to make themselves more powerful.

Mark
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #17  
Just another case of the current administration and excessive Government overreach that hurts any and all Working Americans. As my check out girl at Home Depot mentioned to me last week. Best we can do is Vote and pray. Good advice
IMO
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #18  
His solution was to build it and then claim it had always been there, but it had fallen into disrepair and he was just cleaning it up.
Eddie

I also "repaired" a pond on my place. Turned out that cleaning and repair needed to go 15' deep! Also required an overflow/outlet pipe and a dock (to be repaired properly):thumbsup:
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #19  
It looks like a fabricated story to me. Otherwise there would be complete photos of the pond showing that it did not dam a creek.
 
/ Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property #20  
It looks like a fabricated story to me. Otherwise there would be complete photos of the pond showing that it did not dam a creek.

Exactly.

I'm sure Andy has issues with his pond that may be fair or unfair, but the reported story played up the big bad EPA angle only. I don't trust any reporter who begins with this sentence: "All Andy Johnson wanted to do was build a stock pond on his sprawling eight-acre Wyoming farm"

Andy lives in the middle of nowhere, in Wyoming. There is no such thing as a sprawling eight acres, or a sprawling eight acre farm, in that setting. No offense to anyone in Wyoming, or to an owner of eight acres, but that's just not sensible writing. It is writing with a slant as in, little pond on large farm--how could it matter.

The Maine DEP got after a farmer for daming a stream to create a trout pond. They got involved when a neighbor complained about flooding.
https://bangordailynews.com/2013/04...onstructing-trout-pond-out-of-interim-stream/
Lawyer: Farmer hopeful of keeping homemade trout pond — Mid-Maine — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine

The DEP here makes it difficult to impossible to create a pond over 1/10 acre in an existing wetland. The wet land doesn't have to have standing water either, just evidence of anaerobic soil. Nor can a vernal pool be disturbed. We can forget about tapping into running water for the most part.

There are sound ecological reasons for such rules that become more important as development extends into areas that were previously untouched. We all want to think we or our situation are an exception.
 

Marketplace Items

2004 Ford F-250 Ext. Cab Service Truck w/ Liftgate (A59230)
2004 Ford F-250...
Caterpillar 320 (A60462)
Caterpillar 320...
2011 MULTIQUIP LIGHT PLANT/ FUEL TANK TRAILER (A58214)
2011 MULTIQUIP...
2019 Ford Transit 250 Cargo Van (A59230)
2019 Ford Transit...
Honda EM3800SX Portable Gasoline Generator (A59228)
Honda EM3800SX...
500 BBL FRAC TANK (A58214)
500 BBL FRAC TANK...
 
Top