08-24-2016, 11:17 AM
Now I remember....
It was under the Clean Water Act, where the EPA has control over nearly every body of water.
In a flood event, the EPA would definitely have a valid reason to be involved.
I could see the entire area then being deemed Fed property.
Not to mention the special rules of a disaster scenario, where they even have the right to collect weapons.
I also remember the EPA having SWAT type security, when overtaking that mining area in Alaska.
Not saying anything goofy would happen, just spit-balling future tin-foil events.
![](http://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji14.png)
Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk
It was under the Clean Water Act, where the EPA has control over nearly every body of water.
In a flood event, the EPA would definitely have a valid reason to be involved.
I could see the entire area then being deemed Fed property.
Not to mention the special rules of a disaster scenario, where they even have the right to collect weapons.
I also remember the EPA having SWAT type security, when overtaking that mining area in Alaska.
Not saying anything goofy would happen, just spit-balling future tin-foil events.
![](http://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji14.png)
Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk