They're more than just cowards. There is an ideology behind it that must be defeated intellectually. It's not just a matter of a few rogue bullies in the government; these agencies are driven by the viro ideology.

Exactly. Cowards with Big Brother standing behind them......

I'm glad they are not after your pond, too. There have been several high-profile similar cases for decades, and many more that hardly anyone hears about. It's true that it's imposed by "overzealous minions of the state" bullying people without the 'connections' to head them off, but is far worse: They are viro activist ideologues entrenched as enforcers inside all levels of government agencies nationwide.

They are fanatics with an alien 'cause' inculcated into them by their 'education', whether originally from the city or not. It's a very dangerous, deep-rooted and widespread trend and extends to all areas of the dominant intellectuals from schools to the media, and to government policy on all kinds of land use and industry, not just ponds. Rural areas are especially hard hit by it with all kinds of progressively intensifying Federal and state regulations. Speak out against it in terms of fundamental principles wherever you can.

I live in Wyoming, have followed the bullshit since it started. As I see it, it was some, to say gently, some overzealous minions of the state bullying a small rancher. And I suspect they were not Wyoming (or Rocky Mountain) born and raised. Some city kids showing how tough they were with Obama backing them up.

The mentality behind it threatens all of us, but why in particular do you say it hits close to home for you?

Accidents can be deadly or massive. The question is whether it is really an accident or negligence causing a danger to unsuspecting victims who can reasonably be expected not to know.

A landowner can properly do what he wants on his own land provided he does not cause or threaten physical harm to others. It's not an excuse for collectivism, which doesn't even achieve the "safety" it promotes itself as; quite the opposite. Proper laws protecting the rights of the individual that do not include forced preservationism and ideological hatred for mining and the rest of industry, as we see coming from the viro left.

Establishing proper laws requires the proper philosophical base of individualism, which must be understood and accepted as dominant in the culture. From there, objective procedure for objectively defining and codifying the implementation in law is the role of a proper representative government. India is not an example of any of that, and of course the EPA isn't either.

The recent EO pushing back the Obama power grab exploiting arbitrary redefinition of "navigable waters of the United States" https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... is sincere in its intent despite the weak wording, and may to some extent push the powers back, but this will remain a battle for years with all kinds of political subterfuge and legal maneuvers by the viros and their entrenched power base within the agencies, exploiting every weakness they can. That weakness includes poor philosophical defenses against them in the media and the public in general.

You have critically espoused the bad philosophy of my statement. I have agreed that it was. You can lecture me on the statist collectivists nature and the special interest groups tactics and I would mostly agree.

The question of proper land use and safety of the populace from said activities. Who has a say in it?
Does the land owner have the sole right to do what they want? What role does government have?

" There is no more potential for damaging pollution from private enterprise than any other system. Devastating pollution was a hallmark of the Soviet Union because they had no respect for the rights of the individual."

Or no less potential for deadly effects.
I would not defend the Soviet Union. The death from "accidents" or state sponsored negligence can also be caused by private enterprises accidents.
The Bhopal Tragedy was a Union Carbide Inc. Private enterprise.
Estimates vary on the death toll. The official immediate death toll was 2,259. The government of Madhya Pradesh confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release.[3] A government affidavit in 2006 stated that the leak caused 558,125 injuries, including 38,478 temporary partial injuries and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries.[4] Others estimate that 8,000 died within two weeks, and another 8,000 or more have since died from gas-related diseases.[5].

Not just stated poorly. Of course having good jobs in a strong economy is good, but that is a consequence of economic freedom. The philosophically proper principles must be made explicit, not left out entirely while substituting common appeals based on collectivism.

2. Look up Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill on "the greatest good for the greatest number", a phrase of utilitarian ethics you probably have heard before. If you listen to Leonard Peikoff's lecture series on the history of philosophy you will very clearly see where it came from and how its influence fits in with the evolution of ethics and politics in the movement against the individualism of the Enlightenment.

3. Everything in the universe, not just water, is connected to everything else in some way. It's not an excuse for collectivism, ignoring essential distinctions, as promoted for example in Hegel's organic theory of the state. There is nothing in principle about "connections" in reality to deal with politically as long as property rights are defined and protected. There is no more potential for damaging pollution from private enterprise than any other system. Devastating pollution was a hallmark of the Soviet Union because they had no respect for the rights of the individual.

4. Anyone can "consider" "impacts" or anything else he pleases. The issue here is the use of physical force by government to violate property rights stemming from "considerations" imposed by pressure groups on behalf of whatever they want. It usually shows up from the viros in the form of progressively intensifying forced preservationism. What they sweepingly call an "environmental impact" is simply a result of someone else's life they don't like, not a crime.

The "environment" is everything around you. Their demands to control the "environment" by government are demands to use physical force to control everything around them, which means controlling everything, including you, which is why they are such totalitarian nihilists. It is not true that they have a so-called "right to participate in other people's decisions that affect them". That is totalitarian collectivism.

They make no distinction between preventing actual physical harm violating someone's rights and "affecting" something in a way they don't like.

The first is within the realm of government -- at some level whether local, state or national -- to protect the objective rights of individuals; the second is the target of their collectivist pressure group warfare they impose in any way they can at all levels of government and have no right to do -- like exploiting every conceivable bureaucratic tactic they can think of for 30 years to strangle the creation of a mine they don't like and seek to destroy by any meany possible.

Ends determined by their feelings justifying the means is anarchy and statism. It's their hijacking the physical power of government to coercively impose whatever they want, not the principles of proper government at any level.

You are right. It was stated poorly. Of course regarding the goals or objective of the property owners is the priority.
To defend their freedom to ethically act in their own self-interest.

"The conservative adaptation of Mill's collective utilitarianism." First I have heard of it thanks for the tip.

One question ,How do we deal with the interconnected water we all depend on and the potential pollution from private enterprise?

Is the environmental impact from the activity to neighboring properties a consideration of local communities or govt.?

When you lead with the benefit of the mine as to "provide hundreds of well paid jobs and the local industry to support those folks plus we get the metals in to the economy" and then add as if an afterthought "plus we get the metals into the economy", it put's a collectivist argument ahead of the reason and justification for the mine as a private productive enterprise whose purpose is the goals of the mine owners. It isn't for "jobs" or "the economy", both of which are byproducts.

The conservative adaptation of Mill's collective utilitarianism has been devastating to freedom and the rights of the individual, and should not be echoed in defending capitalism.

Likewise, " local knowledge of the watershed for management" and a vague appeal to "utilize a resource" is no substitute for private ownership rights of the land as justification of the mine. The EPA substitute of targeting land in the name of "navigable waters of the United States" is a direct assault on private property rights on principle across the country. That is what this battle has been over for decades. An appeal to 'local' collectivist control or "utilization" of a "resource" with no mention of the fundamental alternative of private property rights versus government control is a false alternative and not the answer to the viros.

I agree! Now, if he could just the them all out of HUD, which is their newest gateway to taking property. Make sure those who cannot afford to buy in a neighborhood are allowed to live their via low income housing. Now, who is that helping, except ti dimish property rights and make every one run to urban high rises, which is what they want.

Did not mean to imply the effort was to do anything but utilize a resource . My point was the permitting process lasted a decade and cost the investors $30 million plus. Very unproductive. Economy killing regulations.
Any disagreement with that?

The intent is to overturn the Obama unconstitutional decree of arbitrary Federal land use controls everywhere in the name of Congressionally authorized protection of "navigable waters of the United States" from pollution.

But the EO was literally written as an indirect order to "reconsider" the EPA "interpretation" (see the text of the EO below from 2/27/17).

It did not tell them to respect private property rights and remain within the original intent and statement of the law rather than expanding their "rules" to anything biologically related to anything that is wet as an excuse for land use control and prohibition.

We all know how the viros, including those entrenched in and running the EPA, "interpret" "promotes economic growth and minimizes regularity uncertainty" to mean wilderness and the 'certainty' of the dictatorship they demand. (They literally propagandize that "the economy" is better where there are Federal parks and wilderness.) And we know how they "consider interpreting the term 'navigable waters'" "in a manner consistent with ... Rapanos v. United States" -- They just "considered" that when they wrote the law they wanted into the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), now known as the CFP (Code of Federal Pens). So why beat around the water lilly in the usual conservative fashion politely pandering to false premises and motives?


Executive Order—Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the “Waters of the United States” Rule

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - -

RESTORING THE RULE OF LAW, FEDERALISM, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
BY REVIEWING THE “WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES” RULE

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation’s navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles played by Congress and the States under the Constitution.

Sec. 2. Review of the Waters of the United States Rule.

(a) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (the Administrator) and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (Assistant Secretary) shall review the final rule entitled, “Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” 80 Fed. Reg. 37054 (June 29, 2015), for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the rule, as appropriate and consistent with law.

(b) The Administrator, the Assistant Secretary, and the heads of all executive departments and agencies shall review all orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing the final rule listed in subsection (a) of this section for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and shall rescind or revise, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules rescinding or revising, those issuances, as appropriate and consistent with law and with any changes made as a result of a rulemaking proceeding undertaken pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.

(c) With respect to litigation before the Federal courts related to the final rule listed in subsection (a) of this section, the Administrator and the Assistant Secretary shall promptly notify the Attorney General of the pending review under subsection (b) of this section so that the Attorney General may, as he deems appropriate, inform the court (or courts) of such review and take such measures as he deems appropriate concerning any such case or action pending the completion of further administrative proceedings related to the rule.

Sec. 3. Definition of “Navigable Waters” in Future Rulemaking. In connection with the proposed rule described in section 2(a) of this order, the Administrator and the Assistant Secretary shall consider interpreting the term “navigable waters,” as defined in 33 U.S.C. 1362(7), in a manner consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).

Sec. 4. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Its taken years and tons of money to restore the eastern and mid-western rivers to the point where
their water is almost safe for fishing and human consumption again. I sincerely hope that corporations have become enlightened enough to
assume personal responsibility to keep those gains.

Right you are. And San Onofre would have the added benefit of being protected by a whole bunch oof Marines at Camp Pendleton.

The purpose of the mine is to produce metal, not jobs. "Plus we get the metals into the economy" makes it look like the production is secondary. Jobs are a consequence of creating the mine. No one runs a business to "create jobs", that much the government could do under statism -- as in New Deal make-work projects.

It doesn't prohibit owning land outside DC. It requires approval of the state legislature to cede state land. Most of the land in the west was controlled by the Federal government in the territories before there were states. The Constitution does not authorize permanent 'ownership' and management of land other than constitutionally authorized functions like forts and the post office.

I meant the outright prohibition on the Federal Government to own land outside D.C.

It isn't "right there in the Constitution", which is why the Federal government has no authority to do it.

Perhaps Trump will see if he gets reelected and THEN shut down the EPA, thus causing libs all over to rip their garments wide open and to scream "BLASPHEMY!"
Well, me dino be metaphorically speaking.
I would expect libs to run wild in the streets while lefty talking heads whine themselves hoarse.

This one hit close to home: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/us...

They shelved San Onofre NPS which would have been ideal for a set of DeSal plants, then SoCal would have all the water it wanted to waste. Now they also want to get rid of Diablo Canyon... and make sure we don't have any more of those nasty evil Nuclear Power plants ever ever again... Because California is so much better than cheap, easy terawatts of power. Grrrr.......

Or it will force them to build the necessary infrastructure (like reverse-osmosis pumps) to deal with their population. Right now, they force other states to support their consumption - not only of electricity but water as well.

Trump on the right path....as most conservatives, he just does not get it yet (i.e. - repeal, but replace Obamacare...just repeal it.)

In a way this could be bad for someplace like Northern California, where they have a significant water resource, but the liberal LA basin and their Sacramento Cronies want to drain all the water from here just like they did to the Owens Valley... And if the state, not the feds, control the water now, we're set to be an extension of Northwest Nevada.\