Feds are biggest bullies ever

[UndertheHalo]

Or maybe don't dump shit in the water. 

Regulations don't exist to be vindictive and difficult. 

Edited May 24, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[mtangelsfan]

That is debatable and it certainly makes no argument about those who enforce them.  Do honestly believe 3 million dollars is warranted?  Do you think tilling his field is worth losing his farm?

I just don't understand how so many people just don't give a crap about the rights of ownership.

[UndertheHalo]

I don't know if it's warranted.  If it was a mistake then sure.  

What do you think the punishment should be for someone who destroys a source of water ? It's not a trivial matter.  The price should be steep if you fuck with water. 

 

Edited May 24, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[mtangelsfan]

If you mean by putting some dirt in the water..............

$5.00.

If you mean dumping chemicals in waterways on purpose, then have at it.  

I just believe an owner of land should be given every chance to run his property the way they see fit as much as it is possible.

[UndertheHalo]

And it's not about disrespecting rights of ownership.  Water has its own governance as Red has noted.  It's a scarce resource. 

[red321]

6 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

That is debatable and it certainly makes no argument about those who enforce them.  Do honestly believe 3 million dollars is warranted?  Do you think tilling his field is worth losing his farm?

I just don't understand how so many people just don't give a crap about the rights of ownership.

Who is saying they don't give a crap about rights of ownership? As in a lot of cases, it's not a simple case, especially when water rights are involved.

[UndertheHalo]

1 minute ago, mtangelsfan said:

If you mean by putting some dirt in the water..............

$5.00.

If you mean dumping chemicals in waterways on purpose, then have at it.  

I just believe an owner of land should be given every chance to run his property the way they see fit as much as it is possible.

If you make a mistake and ruin a source of water it doesn't matter if it's an accident or not.  Especially if you failed to follow established rules, put in place precisely for the reason of protecting the water. Poorly controlled farming has destroyed plenty of water in this state.  If you're farming  understand that you deal with the responsibilities.  

[Thomas]

Just now, UndertheHalo said:

If you make a mistake and ruin a source of water it doesn't matter if it's an accident or not.  Especially if you failed to follow established rules, put in place precisely for the reason of protecting the water. Poorly controlled farming has destroyed plenty of water in this state.  If you're farming  understand that you deal with the responsibilities.  

The EPA agrees
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gold-king-mine-spill-colorado-rivers-epa-claims/

[UndertheHalo]

3 minutes ago, Thomas said:

The EPA agrees
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gold-king-mine-spill-colorado-rivers-epa-claims/

I'm not sure what your point is.  I'm defending the spirit of the regulations.  Not the agencies case by case behavior.  Obviously if they caused the damage they should pay the people who have suffered losses as consequence.  

The spill is a terrible tragedy for the environment.  Shameful. 

Edited May 24, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[Thomas]

7 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I'm not sure what your point is.  I'm defending the spirit of the regulations.  Not the agencies case by case behavior.  Obviously if they caused the damage they should pay the people who have suffered losses as consequence.  

The spill is a terrible tragedy. 

They don't feel like they should have to pay however. Why? Because they don't think they have to. They are in a position of power over those, especially the tribal lands, that aren't. That is bullying 101.

[UndertheHalo]

You're projecting an argument onto me that I am not making.  

I don't have an issue with the idea that a federal agency can be overbearing or a "bully"  

my point is only that particular care should be taken to not pollute water and that severe punishment for doing so is appropriate.   I stated clearly that the EPA should compensate those who have suffered as a consequence of their fuck up.  I stated clearly that it was a terrible tragedy. 

The EPA is the governing agency.  There's no authority above them on this matter.  Should people at the agency be terminated.  Absolutely.  Hopefully heads did roll.  That's a separate matter from whether they should pay for the damage or not though. 

Also, its bit of strawman a isn't it ? The thing with gold mine was an accident.  As far as I know there were no regulations that were violated.

Edited May 24, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[UndertheHalo]

2 hours ago, gotbeer said:

Yup.  no win situation. 

Although I do find it funny.  And not directed at you Mt, just a general observation.  When Trump says they will reduce the EPA, everyone is up in arms about we need clean water and such.  But when the feds do something about it, then they are up in arms about they are overreaching. 

Kobayashi Maru.

10/10 for the kobayashi maru reference btw.  great stuff.

[Blarg]

4 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Why did they care what he was doing with the water?

Because one jackass flood irritating can drain a creek or stream dry. The water is shared resource between all of the homesteads in the area and is used for basic watering. This guy was grotesquely over his allotted limit which means downstream someone may get none in dry years even if they have rights to more usage. It has nothing to do with where you are located as much as grandfathered rights as to who gets first and how much. 

[Thomas]

29 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Also, its bit of strawman a isn't it ? The thing with gold mine was an accident.  As far as I know there were no regulations that were violated.

Nobody here believes it was an accident.

[Blarg]

My father, many years ago, went about putting a rather large pond in his lower pasture but had to get it permitted and file an environmental impact report to assure the water retained would not exceed the amount he would have the rights to use and the overflow would not harm the existing waterways through erosion or influx of containments. He had to submit both engineering plans and soil samples for what he was going to use to water cattle.

The cattle lasted only a couple seasons and now the pond is like a sanctuary for water fowl, primarily Canadian geese. It also is a breeding ground for indigenous fish that live in the safety of the still water then work themselves downstream when they mature. I pity the poor bastard that buys the property and finds out he can't remove the pond because now it is a wildlife refuge.

[mtangelsfan]

5 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

If you make a mistake and ruin a source of water it doesn't matter if it's an accident or not.  Especially if you failed to follow established rules, put in place precisely for the reason of protecting the water. Poorly controlled farming has destroyed plenty of water in this state.  If you're farming  understand that you deal with the responsibilities.  

You are arguing ideals.  I am arguing application.  Sure is easy to say someone else should pay three million

[UndertheHalo]

30 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

You are arguing ideals.  I am arguing application.  Sure is easy to say someone else should pay three million

If the fine is exessive or unusually punitive then it should be corrected.  If it's in line with how these types of violations are fined, then I don't understand what your objection is.  I don't know why you're implying that I'm being unfair.  The article seems to indicate that it's a fairly unusual case.  So it's not really a black and white thing.  If I read it correctly, it's not exactly a 3 million dollar ticket.  Part of the cost is associated with repairing the damage done.  I mean, that is what it is.  Accountability right ?

Its going to go trial, that's what courts are for as you know.  They'll figure out a precedent and I'm sure rule accordingly. 

Edited May 25, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[Blarg]

Was there an actual violation that caused any harm? 

[mtangelsfan]

2 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

If the fine is exessive or unusually punitive then it should be corrected.  If it's in line with how these types of violations are fined, then I don't understand what your objection is.  I don't know why you're implying that I'm being unfair.  The article seems to indicate that it's a fairly unusual case.  So it's not really a black and white thing.  If I read it correctly, it's not exactly a 3 million dollar ticket.  Part of the cost is associated with repairing the damage done.  I mean, that is what it is.  Accountability right ?

Its going to go trial, that's what courts are for as you know.  They'll figure out a precedent and I'm sure rule accordingly. 

I guess because the government has unlimited resources and most farmers don't.   I see small farms being bought out left and right and much of it is due to government interference.  I get ticked at flippant attitudes regarding entire ways of life being wiped out.

[UndertheHalo]

15 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

I guess because the government has unlimited resources and most farmers don't.   I see small farms being bought out left and right and much of it is due to government interference.  I get ticked at flippant attitudes regarding entire ways of life being wiped out.

I did not intend to come off as flippant about it. It's a serious fine with serious consequences.  

[arch stanton]

7 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

I guess because the government has unlimited resources and most farmers don't.   I see small farms being bought out left and right and much of it is due to government interference.  I get ticked at flippant attitudes regarding entire ways of life being wiped out.

I know you're big on property rights but don't you have to balance that with your part in a society? Owning land doesn't make you an island unto yourself who can do as you please without regard to those around you. The Clean Water Act is Nixon era legislation. That battle was fought and decided 45 years ago. I can certainly understand frustration with government interference and restrictions but if water protection is putting one farmer out of business it's probably saving 2 others. If the fine is excessive then that can be overturned (no pun intended) easier than the destruction of the waters if that occurs.

[Tank]

12 hours ago, Blarg said:

My parents have very enviable 3rd water rights on a small stream that passes through their property along with a creek. They even went to court to sue another neighbor for flood irrigation when he didn't have sufficient water rights to support the usage.

The guy thought that because his property was higher up the stream it automatically gave him preference. It took a court order to shut off his pumps and 20 years later his still gives my parents the finger as he drives by their property.

interesting. i didn't know @Adam owned property near your parents.

[mtangelsfan]

57 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

I know you're big on property rights but don't you have to balance that with your part in a society? Owning land doesn't make you an island unto yourself who can do as you please without regard to those around you. The Clean Water Act is Nixon era legislation. That battle was fought and decided 45 years ago. I can certainly understand frustration with government interference and restrictions but if water protection is putting one farmer out of business it's probably saving 2 others. If the fine is excessive then that can be overturned (no pun intended) easier than the destruction of the waters if that occurs.

I don't want to come off as though I don't care about clean water.  My beef is with the enforcement of the regulations and how it effects small businesses that can't pay million dollar fines or pay for lawyers to fight an opponent with unlimited resources.

[Rico]

Thanks Trump!

[Adam]

I deal with government regulators on a weekly basis. Challenging group of people to communicate with. Not a lot of valedictorians in that group.