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

[backintheday]

The obvious problem is that government has grown beyond the founders wildest nightmares. The questions is, what do we as pissed off Americans do about it?

 

[slowzuki]

You do understand the old anti-fouling paints are extremely toxic? Thats why they worked so well to kill stuff that tries to attach to it.

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,


Later,
Dan

 

[charlz]

This happens now and again out West here. Just because there is water on your property does not mean you own it or have any rights to it or can even keep other people out of it. For instance Montana and Idaho have stream access laws which allows the public to use a stream across your property as long as they access it at a public access point and then stay below the high water mark while on your property. Read up on Mitchell Slough and Huey Lewis (of Huey Lewis and The News) to see an example where people have bought land and then thought they had exclusive rights to the water on their land.

If this guys case goes to court he will simply go broke trying to fight the EPA.

 

[dmccarty]

You do understand the old anti-fouling paints are extremely toxic? Thats why they worked so well to kill stuff that tries to attach to it.

Are these "old anti-fouling paints are extremely toxic" paints still on the market? There are many new paints on the market that are not toxic so a blanket ban is warranted?

Later,
Dan

 

[slowzuki]

When almost all existing anti-fouling paints are toxic, its hard to police if you add an exception.

 

[Loren49]

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,


Later,
Dan

I know of many owners who clean and repaint boat bottoms. There are standards for collecting dust from sanding and debris from scraping.

Loren

 

[powerpace]

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.

And the people downstream that would benefit from having a free flowing stream? Now that it is blocked and changing the environment of the stream for flora and fauna.

 

[powerpace]

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,


Later,
Dan

The reason for that is because the hull paint is poisonous to fish and plants. Copper based antifouling coatings are dangerous to people swimming in the water also. Scraping and/or sandblasting the waste from the boat may disperse the toxins into the air and groundwater. Not to mention the "ppe" personal protection equipment required in removing the product. Plus you need a certified disposal location for the waste. Dumping the waste on the ground or into the water kills the living matter near it.

 

[powerpace]

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

The currant administration has little to do with it. Except for lax enforcement of the water use and quality laws.

If any administration would enforce the water quality and usage laws there would not have been the problem in West Virginia and other areas that have unregulated draining of chemicals a runoff from agricultural processes.

In reality water rights were the first consideration in settling the new world. Many incidences of water wars were and still are fought legally and physically in the west. The majority of laws referring to water rights in the western states including Wyoming are 'first come first serve". In most of Oregon the rule is a landowner is allowed a certain amount of water use according to the original purchase date of the land and subsequent filing for water rights. Also if the rights "usage" are not used the rights are forfeited. In other words you go to the back of the line in usage rights.

http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/pubs/aquabook_laws.aspx

http://wwdc.state.wy.us/history/Wyoming_Water_Law_History.html

 

[Loren49]

The reason for that is because the hull paint is poisonous to fish and plants. Copper based antifouling coatings are dangerous to people swimming in the water also. Scraping and/or sandblasting the waste from the boat may disperse the toxins into the air and groundwater. Not to mention the "ppe" personal protection equipment required in removing the product. Plus you need a certified disposal location for the waste. Dumping the waste on the ground or into the water kills the living matter near it.

The copper and other toxins in bottom paint leach into the water to do the job. With ablative paints the entire coatings will leach into the water over time. The use of a drop cloth when scraping bottom paint and a vacuum on a sander along with a mask will minimize unwanted results. Many do very light sanding before applying a new coat. Considering the fact that if left in the water a high percentage of the material leaches into the water, it seems that there may be a bit of over regulation in some areas.

The good news is that there are some new bottom paints that are not considered toxic by the EPA etc. The problem is they may not be very effective in high fouling waters.

Is Copper Bottom Paint Sinking - BoatUS Magazine

When it comes to painting the bottom of a recreational vessel's hull to discourage marine growth, boaters currently have a wide array of products from which to choose. And while the choices can be a bit bewildering, beginning January 1, 2020, boaters in the state of Washington can scratch off their lists any paints that contain more than 0.5 percent copper. That's because last year, in response to concerns about contamination in Washington waters, the state legislature outlawed copper-based antifouling paints. (Paints on the market today contain 20- to 70-percent copper.)

Photo of copper-bottom of a boat
This ban applies only to private recreational boats 65-feet and under. That leaves commercial, government, research, and for-hire passenger vessels not to mention large ocean-going ships that frequent Washington waters free to discourage marine growth with paint that recreational boaters can't use. And the fine, if they do, is a maximum $10,000 per day


This article was talking about Washington State and California.

Seems less than fair to go after the small private only.

Loren

 

[rekees4300]

The obvious problem is that government has grown beyond the founders wildest nightmares. The questions is, what do we as pissed off Americans do about it?

A mass tax revolt would get their attention.

 

[timster2]

What happens when a few beavers take up residence and make a dam?

 

[crash325]

And the people downstream that would benefit from having a free flowing stream? Now that it is blocked and changing the environment of the stream for flora and fauna.

Creating a small dam to create a duck or wild life pond does not change things down stream. Fairly soon the pond will fill and the water goes pretty much back to normal.

 

[powerpace]

Creating a small dam to create a duck or wild life pond does not change things down stream. Fairly soon the pond will fill and the water goes pretty much back to normal.

Small yes. But size is relative to the supposed end use of the builder.

 

[dave1949]

Creating a small dam to create a duck or wild life pond does not change things down stream. Fairly soon the pond will fill and the water goes pretty much back to normal.

I don't think that is true. Putting in a pond where there was not one, that is fed and drained by a stream introduces a whole host of new organisms into the stream. It may also raise the water temperature downstream for some distance. It may contribute to silting, and algae growth due to a higher nutrient load, in the stream bed.

 

[Kyle_in_Tex]

I don't think that is true. Putting in a pond where there was not one, that is fed and drained by a stream introduces a whole host of new organisms into the stream. It may also raise the water temperature downstream for some distance. It may contribute to silting, and algae growth due to a higher nutrient load, in the stream bed.

Like when beavers dam it up?

 

[dave1949]

Like when beavers dam it up?

timster2 mentioned beavers also. I'm sure beavers do alter the nature of a stream below their pond. In a dry spell, they may choke off a small stream entirely, or just a little bit of seepage at their dam makes it into the stream.

Without better pics, it's hard to say if beavers would have built a pond in the same place. The trees behind Andy & family would support beavers but I don't know where they are in relation to the stream. But, let's say they would--assuming there would usually be trees lining a stream or drainage--which appear to be missing around the pond. The trees along trout streams are important for keeping the water cool in summer. The trees that naturally topple into a stream provide good fish habitat in the form of protective cover, and by altering the water flow to produce pools.

Beavers build a pond by flooding flatish areas where the water is not moving too fast. They excavate some mud for their lodge and for use in the dam, but not nearly as much as someone digging a pond with machinery does. They usually exhaust the nearby food sources after several years and move to a new location. The male kits are forced to migrate away by the parent beavers in any case at around one year of age. There would normally always be young beavers looking for a new location.

After the beavers abandon a pond, the dam eventually deteriorates and the pond is drained often leaving behind a boggy, marshy area that takes several years to fully dry out. It does dry eventually and there will be a progression of wetland plants to trees over time. When enough tree regrowth has occurred to support a beaver looking for new home, the cycle begins again.

With successive colonies of beavers damming the same pond area, the natural soil erosion from upstream is deposited in the pond area each time it is dammed. Eventually this accumulates and forms what is called a beaver meadow in the area behind the dam. On sloping ground, the beavers often build terraced ponds, progressively moving the main pond area over time as colonies come and go, and the filling meadow area becomes more difficult to flood.

As you can see, beavers create a variety of habitats from fish and water fowl ponds, to marshes, to rich topsoil meadows. In turn those habitats support a wealth of biodiversity and act as natural water filters and erosion controllers. Beavers are responsible for much of the natural characteristics of small waterways and their adjacent areas.

It is hard to equate what beavers create, the natural progression to varied habitats, with a pond that will be purposely held in a static state. Add in cattle that will graze and wade, and the lack of natural vegetation surrounding the pond, and the result is not comparable to the effects of a beaver pond. Over the long term, the resulting impact on the stream is not the same either.

 

[TomSeller]

A mass tax revolt would get their attention.

Remember the French Revolution. Off with their heads.

 

[sparc]

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 ------

But, if you were to entice some nice, friendly, hard-working beavers to your property adn they were to build or enhance your dam that would be mother nature doing what she does best, and they wouldn't be able to do a thing about it.

So maybe you need a couple beavers you can train to build in a certain spot.

 

[dmccarty]

When almost all existing anti-fouling paints are toxic, its hard to police if you add an exception.

I guess the government should also make it illegal for tractor owners to change engine oil, hydraulic oil and engine coolant since it is toxic..

Later,
Dan