“I hate the EPA and am particularly outraged by their recent egregious attempt to control America’s waterways but Reno might have a point. When I read the article, my first thought was ‘I bet there is more to this story.’ It seemed very one-sided.”
You would be well-advised to go read up on all the abuses by the BLM as regards grazing “rights” in Nevada. For years, they have made a concerted effort to drive ranchers off “government (read our)” land. One family in Northern Nevada went through two generations to finally prevail in court. The main problem is that the Feds use your money against you prosecuting you until you finally give up. The Bundys were addressing the bigger problem which is “Federal ownership” of nearly 90% of Nevada. This Federal government took “land bribes” for statehood in the West. $hit, they own more than half of California. It is nothing less than criminal for them to have any more Western state’s lands than is actually needed for their purposes as enumerated in the Constitution. We need to get back to the premise on which this country was founded, United STATES, with the states having most of the power ( as was intended by the Founding Fathers).
What do documented BLM abuses in Nevada have to do with this case in Wyoming involving the EPA? That doesn't make this landowner right nor the EPA wrong. My point was that the report seemed very biased and one-sided. As other posters have stated, apparently, this issue isn't so clear.