On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:04:22 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



Ok. We'll see how far I get with this. I don't even know where it is in
Texas, but I'm curious, too, about finding my way through the EPA.

Andy apparently has checked this out pretty well and should have some
opinion about the quality of EPA's case.

Ed Huntress

I really don't have an opinion about the quality of the case. The
complaint is very vague on details. Whether guilty of the "crime" or
not, he has conceded to the EPA's remedial demands. I think the only
remaining point is how much of a civil penalty he pays.

I simply thought that an official charged with preventing this
activity would have a duty to stop it when he sees it happening before
him. Especially ongoing for two years.

IMHO I think they are ****ed because he didn't get a permit. I think
if he knew he needed a permit, he could have gotten one that maybe
required a silt fence. I've seen a lot more terrain disturbance in a
housing development. (Disclaimer: I haven't seen this since his crime
but he has described it to me.)

Here is an aerial view. It is 1995. I think before he bought it. If
you zoom out a little, you can tell it has rained recently by the
water standing behind conservation terraces in the fields. On the west
side of the Interstate the sun is reflecting off water standing in
the field. You see all the ponds full but you don't see any flowing,
navigable stream. His place is where the brushy area is on either side
of the creek, east of I-35W. Compare the stream size with the 18
wheelers on I-35W.

http://terraserver.microsoft.com/ima...17830&z=14&w=1

As stated in the rules I received, all negotiations with the EPA are
informal. Which means there is no record of what they say and they can
retract any offers. An agreement is only final when it is in writing
and signed.

Another thing about this bothers me. Has anyone ever seen a duck
eating pecans and acorns? That is what they had him plant in the new
wet land pond.