Man faces $75G a day in EPA fines for building pond -- on his property

[Ender]

It's absurd.

A lot of these cases when reading about them appear to be nothing more than personal vendettas or power trips. If one questions the authenticity of a particularly young looking busy body's badge, well he may find himself harassed for the rest of his life bogged down by debt, cease and desist orders barring one from building, and outrageous fines each day the property is not returned to its former state; along with decades of legal battles.

Not to mention drones and SWAT teams.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

http://www.getipm.com/personal/dam.htm

From the '90's The Dam Beavers of Michigan...

STATE OF MICHIGAN

Reply to:
GRAND RAPIDS DISTRICT OFFICE
STATE OFFICE BUILDING 6TH FLOOR
350 OTTAWA NW
GRAND RAPIDS MI 49503-2341

JOHN ENGLER, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
HOLLISTER BUILDING, PO BOX 30473, LANSING MI 48909-7973
INTERNET: http://www.deq.state.mi us
RUSSELL J. HARDING, Director

December 17, 1997

CERTIFIED


Mr. Ryan DeVries
2088 Dagget
Pierson, MI 49339

Dear Mr. DeVries:

SUBJECT: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023-1 T11N, R10W, Sec. 20, Montcalm Count-,),

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent
unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity: Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond.

A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files show that no permits have been issued. Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301,. Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated.

The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially, failed during a recent rain event, causing debris dams and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all unauthorized activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the strewn channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 1998. Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff.

Failure to comply with this request, or any further unauthorized activity on the site, may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action.

We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.


Sincerely,

David L. Price
District Representative
Land and Water Management Division
616-356-0269

dlp:bjc
cc: LWMD, Lansing

MontcaImCEA
Pierson Township
Lieutenant Mary C. Sherzer, DNR LED


Reply:
Stephen and Rosalind Tvedten
2530 Hayes Street
Marne, MI 49435-9751
616-677-1261
616-677-1262 Fax
[email protected]
1/6/98


David L. Price
District Representative
Land and Water Management Division
Grand Rapids District Office
State Office Bldg., 6th Floor
350 Ottawa, N.W.
Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2341

Dear Mr. Price:

Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N, R10W, Sec 20; Montcalm County

Your certified letter dated 12/17/97 has been handed to me to respond to. You sent out a great deal of carbon copies to a lot of people, but you neglected to include their addresses. You will, therefore, have to send them a copy of my response.

First of all, Mr. Ryan DeVries is not the legal landowner and/or contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan - I am the legal owner and a couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, nor authorize their dam project, I think they would be highly offended you call their skillful use of natural building materials "debris". I would like to challenge you to attempt to emulate their dam project any dam time and/or any dam place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no dam way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.

As to your dam request the beavers first must fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity, my first dam question to you is: are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers or do you require all dam beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, please send me completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated. My first concern is - aren't the dam beavers entitled to dam legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said dam representation - so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer.

The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing dam flooding is proof we should leave the dam Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling their dam names. If you want the dam stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition - contact the dam beavers - but if you are going to arrest them (they obviously did not pay any dam attention to your dam letter -- being unable to read English) - be sure you read them their dam Miranda first. As for me, I am not going to cause more dam flooding or dam debris jams by interfering with these dam builders. If you want to hurt these dam beavers - be aware I am sending a copy of your dam letter and this response to PETA. If your dam Department seriously finds all dams of this nature inherently hazardous and truly will not permit their existence in this dam State - I seriously hope you are not selectively enforcing this dam policy - or once again both I and the Spring Pond Beavers will scream prejudice!

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their dam unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam right than I to live and enjoy Spring Pond. So, as far as I and the beavers are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more dam elevated enforcement action now. Why wait until 1/31/98? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then, and there will be no dam way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then.

In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real environmental quality (health) problem; bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the dam beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!)

Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.


Sincerely,

Stephen L.Tvedten

xc: PETA

 

[Matt Collins]

Simple, the government owns all the land:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Simple, the government owns all the land:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title

Wikipedia is guilty of concealing treason and murder along with the US district court in Los Angeles. Do not use them as a source for the structure of the twin towers or Article V, they misrepresent both.

They and the court have been notified.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.disclosure.html

And of course do not use them as reference for any other law.

 

[greyseal]

Having been an elected lawmaker, I'm pretty sure that I understand the law. What you do not understand is that the ordinary citizen is expected to obey every jot and tittle of the law on pain of enforcement and death, but those who act as agents of the government are not held to the same standard of law as we are. This is a violation of Article 4 Section 4, of course, but nonetheless citing US Code in order to describe the role of a government agent is naive at best. The law applies to us, the law does not apply to them. If you don't grasp that already, then I suggest you start paying attention. It's getting mighty ugly in this country.

Actually, the ‘code” is simply a classification system. If you read the information, the code is based on a statute, an actual law passed by Congress, CHAPTER 758 of June 30, 1948, Public Law 845. Now we have a two prong attack, it is possible to demonstrate that the “agency” is in violation of the actual law. We already have enough “summer” soldiers, and too many Tokyo Rose’s.
Secondly, do “Agencies’ heed to the Statute, yes!, in a case I was involved in, the tax “agency” proceeded to assail a person for $2200, based on the tax provision of, “doing business”, the agency stated the “code”, I stated the 1935 Statute, that defined the term as being in “banking”, the meeting was abruptly ended, with a letter of apology arriving a few days later.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Actually, the ‘code” is simply a classification system. If you read the information, the code is based on a statute, an actual law passed by Congress, CHAPTER 758 of June 30, 1948, Public Law 845. Now we have a two prong attack, it is possible to demonstrate that the “agency” is in violation of the actual law. We already have enough “summer” soldiers, and too many Tokyo Rose’s.

You do not seem to understand. American government is broken. We no longer live in a republican form of government. They enforce the laws on ordinary citizens, but the government, the government's agents, and the elected persons are "above the law." Until things change in a very massive way, that much will remain the same. Just because you find a law dictating the operations of a government agency, doesn't mean that agence does or ever will follow that law.

Secondly, do “Agencies’ heed to the Statute, yes!, in a case I was involved in, the tax “agency” proceeded to assail a person for $2200, based on the tax provision of, “doing business”, the agency stated the “code”, I stated the 1935 Statute, that defined the term as being in “banking”, the meeting was abruptly ended, with a letter of apology arriving a few days later.

You were citing law that applied to an INDIVIDUAL. By defending that individual you demonstrated that their attempt to assail them could not be applied. That does not change the fact that the agencies themselves are above the law. Laws that apply to agencies are ignored, because nobody enforces them. The agencies just do as they please, and for the most part even if a citizen wanted to bring suit they would not have standing.

 

[tommyrp12]

.............

 

[greyseal]

You do not seem to understand. American government is broken. We no longer live in a republican form of government. They enforce the laws on ordinary citizens, but the government, the government's agents, and the elected persons are "above the law." Until things change in a very massive way, that much will remain the same. Just because you find a law dictating the operations of a government agency, doesn't mean that agence does or ever will follow that law.



You were citing law that applied to an INDIVIDUAL. By defending that individual you demonstrated that their attempt to assail them could not be applied. That does not change the fact that the agencies themselves are above the law. Laws that apply to agencies are ignored, because nobody enforces them. The agencies just do as they please, and for the most part even if a citizen wanted to bring suit they would not have standing.

The notion of standing, is established, if the “action” of the “agency” is capricious, or not founded on law. I thought you would know that, being in government.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

The notion of standing, is established, if the “action” of the “agency” is capricious, or not founded on law. I thought you would know that, being in government.

Keep up the good work.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The notion of standing, is established, if the “action” of the “agency” is capricious, or not founded on law. I thought you would know that, being in government.

Standing is established when a person can show that they are directly impacted by the issue they are complaining over. At which point the question of law becomes the laws that govern the individual not the agency. In 21st Century America, our government is above the law. They do not obey it. The judges do not hold them to it. We live in an open tyranny.

 

[tommyrp12]

It was a set up from the beginning. Sorry.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14566693/...he-Mayor-and-Alderman-of-the-City-of-Savannah
*55 But, indeed, no private person has a right tocomplain, by suit in Court , on the ground of abreach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but
he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do, they are entitled to redress.
Or they may waive the right to complain. If they do, the right stands waived. Could not the States, in their sovereign capacities, or Congress (if it has thepower) as their agent,

 

[Lucille]

Wyoming Farmer Sues EPA Over $16 Million in Potential Fines Over Building Drinking Water Pond for His Livestock
http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/28/wyoming-farmer-sues-epa-over-16-million

With the help of the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), Wyoming farmer Andy Johnson is suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in federal court in Wyoming over their insistence that he needed a federal permit to build a stock pond on his land in 2012.

He's facing $37,500 in daily fines from EPA threat unless and until he "restore the property to its prior condition pursuant to a federally approved restoration and mitigation plan." That fine hanging over his head is now above $16 million.

Summary and commentary from the lawsuit as filed about why Johnson thinks the EPA is out of line:

Before constructing the stock pond, Johnson obtained all the necessary state and local permits. He performed the work himself and took every care to maximize the pond’s incidental environmental benefits....

[...]
The suit goes on to explain how the Supreme Court's 2006 Rapanos v. U.S. case defined the waters over which the federal Clean Water Act has hold, and they insist that Johnson's pond is not the sort of water the feds have any jurisdiction over [...]

Johnson wants to get the EPA to admit it has no jurisdiction over his pond, stop threatening him, and pay his legal fees.

The Pacific Legal Foundation's press release announcing the suit with some juicy states v. fed authority details:

“For more than a year, Andy Johnson has sought to explain EPA’s error to it,” said [PLF attorney Jonathan] Wood. “He provided them a report on the project prepared by a former Army Corps of Engineers enforcement officer that lauds its many environmental benefits. Of course, he pointed to his receiving all the necessary state and local permits. But EPA won’t budge, or even explain why it should be able to ignore the law’s exemption for stock ponds.”

Indeed, the EPA continues its crusade against Johnson even though Wyoming state officials have said that he complied with all state requirements. The state engineer, for instance, says that Andy’s state permit is “in good standing and entitled to be exercised exactly as permitted.”

Gov. Matt Mead, in a statement, said: “Mr. Johnson permitted and constructed his stock water pond appropriately. ... The actions of the EPA in regard to Mr. Johnson have been heavy-handed.”

 

[Anti Federalist]

Just squatters.

That's all we are.

 

[bunklocoempire]

That imaginary "social contract" sure looks like a real gun.

 

[RonPaulIsGreat]

Proud to be an American, where I'm free to do what I'm told.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Proud to be an American, where I'm free to do what I'm told.

That which is not required, is prohibited.

 

[Christian Liberty]

That which is not required, is prohibited.

This is true for worship, it ought never be true in daily life.

 

[Suzanimal]

 

[jbauer]

The dam beaver letter was hilarious. Wonder if they evicted the Beavers.

 

[phill4paul]

Update:

A Wyoming man threatened with $16 million in fines over the building of a stock pond reached a settlement with the Environment Protection Agency, allowing him to keep the pond without a federal permit or hefty fine.

Andy Johnson, of Fort Bridger, Wyoming obtained a state permit before building the stock pond in 2012 on his sprawling nine-acre farm for a small herd of livestock.

Not long after contruction, the EPA threatened Johnson with civil and criminal penalties – including the threat of a $37,500-a-day fine -- claiming he needed the agency's permission before building the 40-by-300 foot pond, which is filled by a natural stream.

Under the settlement, Johnson's pond will remain and he won't pay any fines or concede any federal jurisdiction to regulate the pond. And the government won't pursue any further enforcement actions based on the pond's construction.

The only conditions, according to Johnson's lawyers, are that willow trees be planted around the pond and a partial fence installed to "control livestock."

“This is a huge victory for us as well as private property owners across the country,” Johnson said.

“The next family that finds itself in our situation, facing ominous threats from EPA, can take heart in knowing that many of these threats will not come to pass," he said. "If, like us, you stand up to the overreaching bureaucrats, they may very well back down."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ines-beats-epa-in-battle-over-stock-pond.html