@georgeob1,
I think we can set that aside. Or we could stand it up beside the rumor that Trump, in Russia, had a thing for girls' peepee.
Quote: Her office championed the arbitrary extension of the "Waters of the United States" term on the Clean Water Act - a term that has always meant the navigable rivers and streams of the country, to include water storage ponds in farms and ranches, and even temporary puddles resulting from regrading at construction sites.
I won't bother digging down to find if your description here matches the facts. But obviously, storage ponds of many sorts can have, and have had, seriously harmful effects on downstream water systems or nearby wells when those ponds' integrity has been breached or where leaks have occurred. Concern for such ponds is entirely rational.
Quote:The result being effective ownership of the property by an EPA
That's a notion which seems to match a certain aspect of your ideology but it is incoherent. When the police cordon off a city block because some guy is running around shooting people, are the police guilty of taking effective ownership of that city block? When a community or city is forced by civic authorities to evacuate (as in Alberta last year and BC this year) because of an approaching wildfire, is that such an instance of
taking ownership? When an electrical inspector stops construction on a house or building because of fire-code violations, is that taking ownership? All are examples of a government entity of some sort exerting temporary control of an area for very sound reasons.
Quote:construction puddle
I recall you using that phrase previously. Do you by any chance have a photo of this "puddle"? Were children running through it and splashing happily as children do after a rainfall? I'd imagine that this "puddle" posed some risks of some sort to the bay below. Are you asserting there were no risks? That the EPA moved for no rational reason at all but did it merely because they could? Because the individuals involved just desire power?