Farmer faces $2.8 million fine after plowing field

Sailor said:
Really? Apparently you do not know fuck all about the definition of a waterway. I do. So how about you stop with the faux intelligence and learn something before posting it???
Click to expand...


You know what people are held in contempt in every professional job I have ever had? People who act like know it all about topics they have no training or expertise in.

You know nothing about the statutory definitions and case history of the Clean Water Act. These EPA regulators do, and I have the background and knowledge to be able to tell you have never even picked up a copy of the Clean Water Act.
 
Cypress said:
You know what people are held in contempt in every professional job I have ever had? People who act like know it all about topics they have no training or expertise in.

You know nothing about the statutory definitions and case history of the Clean Water Act. These EPA regulators do, and I have the background and knowledge to be able to tell you have never even picked up a copy of the Clean Water Act.
Click to expand...

That would be a great definition of you on this subject. If you cannot get the difference between a waterway and water body correct, you do not fuck. Nice try though you fraud.
 
anatta said:
there are reasons where aquifers are prohibited from being disturbed by activity.
same with interstate streams or navigable waterways.

Here it's clearly EPA over-reach with their bogus WOTUS rulings under Obama.

Trump is merely correcting the over-correction
Click to expand...

Then why is the farmer screwed?
Trump didn't fix anything.
 
Cypress said:
You know what people are held in contempt in every professional job I have ever had? People who act like know it all about topics they have no training or expertise in.

You know nothing about the statutory definitions and case history of the Clean Water Act. These EPA regulators do, and I have the background and knowledge to be able to tell you have never even picked up a copy of the Clean Water Act.
Click to expand...

Do you have the background to know what a natural right is?
 
Rune said:
Then why is the farmer screwed?
Trump didn't fix anything.
Click to expand...
1. look at the date: "judgment issued in June 2016".
2. I'm not sure if the EPA budget and regs have actually been trimmed back -
i think they (regs)have been by XO-but this ruling is from before Trump took Office
 
Cypress said:
You know what people are held in contempt in every professional job I have ever had? People who act like know it all about topics they have no training or expertise in.

You know nothing about the statutory definitions and case history of the Clean Water Act. These EPA regulators do, and I have the background and knowledge to be able to tell you have never even picked up a copy of the Clean Water Act.
Click to expand...

He thinks he knows all about water 'cause he is a sailorman...
LOL
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I'm seriously asking because i'm curious, but do you know what a natural right is?
Click to expand...

Life, liberty, and property - the basis for American rights. Also, they are rights that exist in nature/from God, and are held by individuals on the basis of their humanity, rather than because they have been granted to them.
 
anatta said:
1. look at the date: "judgment issued in June 2016".
2. I'm not sure if the EPA budget and regs have actually been trimmed back -
i think they (regs)have been by XO-but this ruling is from before Trump took Office
Click to expand...

Right.
Trump didn't fix it.
Date of the OP;
May 25 2017
Trump fail.
 
Rune said:
Right.
Trump didn't fix it.
Click to expand...
President Trump signed an executive order directing EPA head Scott Pruitt to dismantle the Obama Clean Water Rule. With this executive order Scott Pruitt will begin repealing and rewriting the vastly overreaching EPA rule which defined all water as navigable waterways, including puddles, ponds and water retention structures.

EPA Head Scott Pruitt will now go through the same lengthy rule-making process that put it together. It will take time to go through the notice and comment periods and probable legal challenges mounted in the opposite direction by environmental groups.

RESTORING THE RULE OF LAW, FEDERALISM, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
BY REVIEWING THE “WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES” RULE
^The XO
https://theconservativetreehouse.co...ders-epa-to-overturn-obamas-clean-water-rule/
 
anatta said:
President Trump signed an executive order directing EPA head Scott Pruitt to dismantle the Obama Clean Water Rule. With this executive order Scott Pruitt will begin repealing and rewriting the vastly overreaching EPA rule which defined all water as navigable waterways, including puddles, ponds and water retention structures.

EPA Head Scott Pruitt will now go through the same lengthy rule-making process that put it together. It will take time to go through the notice and comment periods and probable legal challenges mounted in the opposite direction by environmental groups.

RESTORING THE RULE OF LAW, FEDERALISM, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
BY REVIEWING THE “WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES” RULE
^The XO
https://theconservativetreehouse.co...ders-epa-to-overturn-obamas-clean-water-rule/
Click to expand...

He will create more problems for farmers than he will solve.
This always happens when simple-minded, savage libertarians believe a complex situation can have a childishly simple solution.
 
cawacko said:
I don't know all that much about farming but this seems crazy to me. No I'm not suggesting there be zero regulations but we punish people for growing food on their own land?




Farmer faces $2.8 million fine after plowing field


A farmer faces trial in federal court this summer and a $2.8 million fine for failing to get a permit to plow his field and plant wheat in Tehama County.

A lawyer for Duarte Nursery said the case is important because it could set a precedent requiring other farmers to obtain costly, time-consuming permits just to plow their fields.

“The case is the first time that we’re aware of that says you need to get a (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) permit to plow to grow crops,” said Anthony Francois, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation.

“We’re not going to produce much food under those kinds of regulations,” he said.

However, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller agreed with the Army Corps in a judgment issued in June 2016. A penalty trial, in which the U.S. Attorney’s Office asks for $2.8 million in civil penalties, is set for August.

The case began in 2012 when John Duarte, who owns Duarte Nursery near Modesto, bought 450 acres south of Red Bluff at Paskenta Road and Dusty Way west of Interstate 5.

According to Francois and court documents, Duarte planned to grow wheat there.

Because the property has numerous swales and wetlands, Duarte hired a consulting firm to map out areas on the property that were not to be plowed because they were part of the drainage for Coyote and Oat creeks and were considered “waters of the United States.”

Francois conceded that some of the wetlands were plowed, but they were not significantly damaged. He said the ground was plowed to a depth of 4 inches to 7 inches.

The Army did not claim Duarte violated the Endangered Species Act by destroying fairy shrimp or their habitat, Francois said.

The wheat was planted but not harvested because in February 2013 the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board issued orders to stop work at the site because Duarte had violated the Clean Water Act by not obtaining a permit to discharge dredged or fill material into seasonal wetlands considered waters of the United States.

Duarte sued the Army Corps and the state, alleging they violated his constitutional right of due process under the law by issuing the cease and desist orders without a hearing. The U.S. Attorney’s Office counter-sued Duarte Nursery to enforce the Clean Water Act violation.

Farmers plowing their fields are specifically exempt from the Clean Water Act rules forbidding discharging material into U.S. waters, Francois said.

However, according court documents filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sacramento, the tractor was not plowing the field. Rather, it was equipped with a ripper, with seven 36-inch ripper shanks that dug an average of 10 inches deep into the soil.

Also, the U.S. Attorney alleges, Duarte ripped portions of the property that included wetland areas.

The ripping deposited dirt into wetlands and streams on the property, in violation of the Clean Water Act, according to documents filed by the U.S. Attorney.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Broderick said he could not comment on the case and referred questions to his office’s public affairs department, which did not call back Monday.

However, documents filed in court explain some of the rationale behind the government’s case.

“Even under the farming exemption, a discharge of dredged or fill material incidental to the farming activities that impairs the flow of the waters of the United States still requires a permit, because it changes the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters,” the U.S. Attorney said in court filings.

The creeks also flow into the Sacramento River, home to endangered salmon.

In addition to civil penalties, the attorney’s office is also asking the judge to order Duarte to repair the damage to the wetlands, including smoothing out the soil and replanting native plants in the wetlands.

He may also be required to purchase other wetlands to compensate for the alleged damage to the property south of Red Bluff, according to the U.S. Attorney’s proposed penalties.

Francois said he thought the proposed penalties were unfair because his client thought the plowing exemption allowed him to till the soil.

“A plain reading of the rules says you don’t need a permit to do what he did,” Francois said. “How do you impose a multimillion penalty on someone for thinking the law says what it says.”


http://www.redding.com/story/news/2017/05/23/farmer-faces-2-8-million-fine-plowing-field/336407001/
Click to expand...


Cawacko, I do not blame you for not realizing this. Federal water quality law is generally not well understood by lay persons.

But in case you happened to post this for anything other than partisan reasons, here is an opportunity to educate yourself.

Wetlands can and are defined, in certain cases, as being under the jurisdictional authority of the United States.
https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/section-404-clean-water-act-how-wetlands-are-defined-and-identified

One has to actually understand the hydrological cycle to understand why. The water flow we see in rivers - now, did that water just magically appear there? No, of course not. Flow and water quality in our traditionally navigable rivers depends on water inputs from small tributaries, creeks, and hydrologically connected wetlands. Without these peripheral smaller water bodies, the big navigable rivers simply would not have sufficient water in them for navigation, let alone for sustaining wildlife and ecosystems.

This is why legal and regulatory precedent has considered certain hydrologically connected wetlands, creeks, and other tributary waters to be subject to United States jurisdiction.
 
x said:
farmers should just tell america to go fuck themselves and have us all starve. Bet we would change our tune pretty quickly when we don't have anything to eat.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of crops grown by farmers do not feed us.
 
Buckly J. Ewer said:
He will create more problems for farmers than he will solve.
This always happens when simple-minded, savage libertarians believe a complex situation can have a childishly simple solution.
Click to expand...
Just wait until he pisses off Mexico, and they stop buying up our corn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top