[INVESTORS] When Wyoming rancher Andy Johnson decided to create a stock pond for horses and cattle on his 8-acre property, he did what any conscientious landowner would do. He got permits from both the state and local government before moving any dirt.
What he didn’t count on was a power-mad Environmental Protection Agency, which in January 2014 said Johnson’s pond violated the Clean Water Act -- even though the CWA exempts stock ponds -- told him to get rid of it, and threatened him with a $37,500 fine for every day he delayed.
Rather than cave to federal thuggery, Johnson refused the order, and then sued the EPA with the help of the invaluable Pacific Legal Foundation. Environmental experts he commissioned said the pond was exempt, and served as a habitat for migratory birds, fish and wildlife.
More than two years later, Johnson won. In a settlement reached with the EPA, he gets to keep his pond, he won’t need to get a federal permit, the EPA fines have been removed, and all Johnson agreed to do was plant some willow trees and limit access to a portion of his pond for a while.
Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Jonathan Wood called the settlement "a win for the Johnson family, and a win for the environment."
But what kind of win is this? The federal government storms onto private property and threatens a family with massive fines, upends their lives for two years, and walks away only after being countersued.
A real win would be if the EPA were banned from engaging in such tactics. Instead, the EPA gets away with almost anything because it’s always in the name of the environment. And it is endlessly testing the limits of its power.
Indeed, while the EPA was harassing Johnson over his pond, it was finalizing a new rule that would vastly expand its jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act to cover, as Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., put it, "everything from prairie puddles to power plants." 
|
