Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3wXg0Bk3U8[/youtube]

On his own private property

That's not a stock pond. It's a dammed lake.

Why is the EPA against this?

Ths thread makes me sad because T-man would have been here today
berating and chastising me relentlessly



I miss that crazy old f*cker a lot

Chizzang wrote:Ths thread makes me sad because T-man would have been here today
berating and chastising me relentlessly



I miss that crazy old f*cker a lot

why would he be beating you up over this?

we all know that Reasonable Cleets doesnt approve of the EPA doing this

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Ths thread makes me sad because T-man would have been here today
berating and chastising me relentlessly



I miss that crazy old f*cker a lot

why would he be beating you up over this?

we all know that Reasonable Cleets doesnt approve of the EPA doing this

It was the game we played for over 10 years
on threads just like this:
I would post the link to where you could donate to the EPA
and he would call me some awful name followed by smelly Hippie comments

in fact one afternoon across a lunch table he called me a few names that I will never forget
and it cheers me up whenever I think about it - except now it makes me sad

andy7171 wrote:Why is the EPA against this?

dbackjon wrote:That's not a stock pond. It's a dammed lake.

I'm not sure if Jon was being literal (I assume because he said dammed and not damned) but I did look it up because I figured maybe there was more to the story... apparently he dammed a stream that flows through his property to make the lake. That's probably a no-no for many reasons. This could be a case of what he did is environmentally sound, but you can't have people just damming up streams that run through their property. My guess is this will get resolved without him paying much of a fine.

89Hen wrote:

andy7171 wrote:Why is the EPA against this?

dbackjon wrote:That's not a stock pond. It's a dammed lake.

I'm not sure if Jon was being literal (I assume because he said dammed and not damned) but I did look it up because I figured maybe there was more to the story... apparently he dammed a stream that flows through his property to make the lake. That's probably a no-no for many reasons. This could be a case of what he did is environmentally sound, but you can't have people just damming up streams that run through their property. My guess is this will get resolved without him paying much of a fine.

In Washington State (and probably Federally everywhere)
Land owners are not allowed to alter a free running stream or river in any way
as the land owner they do NOT own the stream
and in some cases they don't own the land within 25 feet of the stream either

He probably actually altered federally controlled land
even though the county approved his "Land Use" permit
No county has the authority to approve river and stream alteration



Its a little bit like Washington approving and legalizing Marijuana
Yet Federally it is an illegal controlled substance

89Hen wrote:

andy7171 wrote:Why is the EPA against this?

dbackjon wrote:That's not a stock pond. It's a dammed lake.

I'm not sure if Jon was being literal (I assume because he said dammed and not damned) but I did look it up because I figured maybe there was more to the story... apparently he dammed a stream that flows through his property to make the lake. That's probably a no-no for many reasons. This could be a case of what he did is environmentally sound, but you can't have people just damming up streams that run through their property. My guess is this will get resolved without him paying much of a fine.

I meant dammed

I am sure the resolution is to remove the dam. He doesn't have the authority to dam a stream he DOESN'T own. He owns the land AROUND the stream, but the Government owns the stream itself.

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote:
I'm not sure if Jon was being literal (I assume because he said dammed and not damned) but I did look it up because I figured maybe there was more to the story... apparently he dammed a stream that flows through his property to make the lake. That's probably a no-no for many reasons. This could be a case of what he did is environmentally sound, but you can't have people just damming up streams that run through their property. My guess is this will get resolved without him paying much of a fine.

I meant dammed

I am sure the resolution is to remove the dam. He doesn't have the authority to dam a stream he DOESN'T own. He owns the land AROUND the stream, but the Government owns the stream itself.

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote:
I'm not sure if Jon was being literal (I assume because he said dammed and not damned) but I did look it up because I figured maybe there was more to the story... apparently he dammed a stream that flows through his property to make the lake. That's probably a no-no for many reasons. This could be a case of what he did is environmentally sound, but you can't have people just damming up streams that run through their property. My guess is this will get resolved without him paying much of a fine.

I meant dammed

I am sure the resolution is to remove the dam. He doesn't have the authority to dam a stream he DOESN'T own. He owns the land AROUND the stream, but we own the stream itself.

FIFY

kalm wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
I meant dammed

I am sure the resolution is to remove the dam. He doesn't have the authority to dam a stream he DOESN'T own. He owns the land AROUND the stream, but we own the stream itself.

FIFY

True. He probably destroyed some nice trout fishing, as well.

Chizzang wrote:

89Hen wrote:
I'm not sure if Jon was being literal (I assume because he said dammed and not damned) but I did look it up because I figured maybe there was more to the story... apparently he dammed a stream that flows through his property to make the lake. That's probably a no-no for many reasons. This could be a case of what he did is environmentally sound, but you can't have people just damming up streams that run through their property. My guess is this will get resolved without him paying much of a fine.

In Washington State (and probably Federally everywhere)
Land owners are not allowed to alter a free running stream or river in any way
as the land owner they do NOT own the stream
and in some cases they don't own the land within 25 feet of the stream either

He probably actually altered federally controlled land
even though the county approved his "Land Use" permit
No county has the authority to approve river and stream alteration



Its a little bit like Washington approving and legalizing Marijuana
Yet Federally it is an illegal controlled substance

Don't tell Spanos that our Dept of Ecology snaps satellite images of the entire state every few years to search for and go and investigate illegal dam construction and they've been doing it for years. It probably happens in most states. I got inspected once but it was just a berm on a pond that frequently flooded.

dbackjon wrote:

kalm wrote:
FIFY

True. He probably destroyed some nice trout fishing, as well.

And habitat and migratory corridors for birds, otters, beavers, all sorts of critters.

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

In Washington State (and probably Federally everywhere)
Land owners are not allowed to alter a free running stream or river in any way
as the land owner they do NOT own the stream
and in some cases they don't own the land within 25 feet of the stream either

He probably actually altered federally controlled land
even though the county approved his "Land Use" permit
No county has the authority to approve river and stream alteration



Its a little bit like Washington approving and legalizing Marijuana
Yet Federally it is an illegal controlled substance

Don't tell Spanos that our Dept of Ecology snaps satellite images of the entire state every few years to search for and go and investigate illegal dam construction and they've been doing it for years. It probably happens in most states. I got inspected once but it was just a berm on a pond that frequently flooded.

Check this out - true hilarity
An apartment complex that sits near Lake Sammamish here in Redmond is pissed
A colony of Beavers started damming the marshy area by the apartment complex
next thing you know the property is flooding

I was told the state is in there and telling the apartment complex basically "tough sh!t"
The 1970's built complex is built in an area now set aside as wetland (as of 1997)
they cannot even touch the beaver colony that is effectively destroying the apartment complex

Its actually fairly comical
The company that owns the complex is based out of Chicago (so f*ck them)

What happened to T-man?

Doesn't the government own the rain in Washington state? I thought I read somewhere (maybe here) that you can't collect rainwater there.

ASUG8 wrote:Doesn't the government own the rain in Washington state? I thought I read somewhere (maybe here) that you can't collect rainwater there.

Yes... that is correct

ASUG8 wrote:Doesn't the government own the rain in Washington state? I thought I read somewhere (maybe here) that you can't collect rainwater there.

In Maryland, we get taxed on the rain.

ASUG8 wrote:Doesn't the government own the rain in Washington state? I thought I read somewhere (maybe here) that you can't collect rainwater there.

No kidding, really? Is there a minimum threshold or just an out and out ban on collecting rainwater?

You are all dinosaurs. Things changed in 2009.

http://daily.sightline.org/2011/07/14/l ... in-barrel/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cluck U wrote:You are all dinosaurs. Things changed in 2009.

http://daily.sightline.org/2011/07/14/l ... in-barrel/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not entirely...
In the city limits of Seattle you can collect rainwater in an approved barrel
outside of Seattle city not much has changed

Chizzang wrote:

Cluck U wrote:You are all dinosaurs. Things changed in 2009.

http://daily.sightline.org/2011/07/14/l ... in-barrel/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not entirely...
In the city limits of Seattle you can collect rainwater in an approved barrel
outside of Seattle city not much has changed

Well, hey, in PA we still can't buy beer or liquor outside of a state store so every state still has their silly out of date laws.

GannonFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Not entirely...
In the city limits of Seattle you can collect rainwater in an approved barrel
outside of Seattle city not much has changed

Well, hey, in PA we still can't buy beer or liquor outside of a state store so every state still has their silly out of date laws.

You can't even buy "Mike's Hard Lemonaide" outside of a state liquor store here in Utah.