Farmer faces $2.8 million fine after plowing field

Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Geez, we lost years of lectures from you, all because you had to go and cyber-stalk someone.
 
Althea said:
That may be so, but nobody is citing 'waterways' in the case
Click to expand...

Under the law one is not allowed to plow creeks, modify natural drainages, or plow over wetlands.

Why? Number one, because private property owners do not own the nations waterways. The nations waters and drainages belong to the people of the United States. And secondly, anything one does to a creek or drainage running through their property can detrimentally affect both people and wildlife downstream.

EPA and state environmental agencies are not in the habit of imposing arbitrary and capricious fines.

In this case, I am 98 percent sure they are just doing their jobs as required by the law.

That is pretty much citing waterways.
 
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...

ridiculous..only a statist would say
"vastly overreaching EPA rule which defined all water as navigable waterways, including puddles, ponds and water retention structures"
Click to expand...
are subject to EPA authority.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

can you quote the specific article in the US Constitution that provides the federal government the power/authority to label a certain piece of property as a 'wetland' that requires federal protection? i'd really appreciate the EXACT wording of that. thanks.
 
Combover said:
He owns wetlands? Who the fuck sold him wetlands?!!?
Click to expand...
No one, if you buy a parcel of land and the wetlands are part of the parcel, you don't own them, they are protected, it is spelled out in your deed.
It's like mineral rights, you can own the land but not mineral rights in some cases, proven a structure on a piece of property, but not the land.
 
Queen Snowflake said:
No one, if you buy a parcel of land and the wetlands are part of the parcel, you don't own them, they are protected, it is spelled out in your deed.
It's like mineral rights, you can own the land but not mineral rights in some cases, proven a structure on a piece of property, but not the land.
Click to expand...

That is the literal definition of fucking retarded.
 
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...

Sailor said:
Under the law one is not allowed to plow creeks, modify natural drainages, or plow over wetlands.

Why? Number one, because private property owners do not own the nations waterways. The nations waters and drainages belong to the people of the United States. And secondly, anything one does to a creek or drainage running through their property can detrimentally affect both people and wildlife downstream.

EPA and state environmental agencies are not in the habit of imposing arbitrary and capricious fines.

In this case, I am 98 percent sure they are just doing their jobs as required by the law.

That is pretty much citing waterways.
Click to expand...
Your bolded text is true, but the article in the OP does not address waterways....a distinction you felt was important in this discussion.

As your quoted post asserts, the WATERS of this nation tend to feed the WATERWAYS.

This isn't that. It's aimed at preventing damage to the nation's waterways.
 
Combover said:
Yep, still the literal definition of fucking retarded. That isn't ownership - that's just being liable for property taxes.
Click to expand...
Unless you're cultivating frogs/turtles, buying wetlands is indeed retarded. It's no different than buying a home in a historic district that limits your ability to make certain improvements. Buyer beware.
 
Queen Snowflake said:
No one, if you buy a parcel of land and the wetlands are part of the parcel, you don't own them, they are protected, it is spelled out in your deed.
It's like mineral rights, you can own the land but not mineral rights in some cases, proven a structure on a piece of property, but not the land.
Click to expand...

I am impressed with your knowledge on this topic, which far exceeds the poseurs and phony know-it-alls.

This farmer is a business man. I know enough farmers to know they are smart and savvy enough to know you are not supposed to plow up wetlands at will.

If he was really a savvy business man, it would have been far cheaper for him to comply with the law and get a permit - as you stated earlier.

The CWA does not prohibit modifying the nation's waterways. People do it legally all the time. The law does require that anybody who modifies the nation's jurisdictional surface water resources, they must mitigate those impacts in a variety of ways. That just makes sense.

The rightwing media just uses cases like this to dangle red meat in front of poorly informed wingnut rubes.
 
Cypress said:
I am impressed with your knowledge on this topic, which far exceeds the poseurs and phony know-it-alls.

This farmer is a business man. I know enough farmers to know they are smart and savvy enough to know you are not supposed to plow up wetlands at will.

If he was really a savvy business man, it would have been far cheaper for him to comply with the law and get a permit - as you stated earlier.

The CWA does not prohibit modifying the nation's waterways. People do it legally all the time. The law does require that anybody who modifies the nation's jurisdictional surface water resources, they must mitigate those impacts in a variety of ways. That just makes sense.

The rightwing media just uses cases like this to dangle red meat in front of poorly informed wingnut rubes.
Click to expand...
Seemingly you don't know enough about English, else you wouldn't have written this disaster of a paragraph!

This farmer is a business man. I know enough farmers to know they are smart and savvy enough to know you are not supposed to plow up wetlands at will.

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
 
Cypress said:
I am impressed with your knowledge on this topic, which far exceeds the poseurs and phony know-it-alls.

This farmer is a business man. I know enough farmers to know they are smart and savvy enough to know you are not supposed to plow up wetlands at will.

If he was really a savvy business man, it would have been far cheaper for him to comply with the law and get a permit - as you stated earlier.

The CWA does not prohibit modifying the nation's waterways. People do it legally all the time. The law does require that anybody who modifies the nation's jurisdictional surface water resources, they must mitigate those impacts in a variety of ways. That just makes sense.

The rightwing media just uses cases like this to dangle red meat in front of poorly informed wingnut rubes.
Click to expand...

It seems that it works...Tucker Carlson will soon take it up I'm sure.
 
Queen Snowflake said:
No one, if you buy a parcel of land and the wetlands are part of the parcel, you don't own them, they are protected, it is spelled out in your deed.
It's like mineral rights, you can own the land but not mineral rights in some cases, proven a structure on a piece of property, but not the land.
Click to expand...

good lord.....as a real estate attorney who has drawn up thousands of deeds, I can tell without hesitation that you are a fucking idiot.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
good lord.....as a real estate attorney who has drawn up thousands of deeds, I can tell without hesitation that you are a fucking idiot.......
Click to expand...

Nope. She's right. You may be arguing semantics. A person may own the land. A person may own the property. You may have a right to use the water on your property. But you do not own the water, if it falls under United States jurisdiction. Waters of the U.S. are a trust of the people of this nation. You may want to consider remedial law school.

Code of Federal Regulation Section 230.2(s)

The term waters of the United States means:
(1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
(3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: (i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or (ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition;
(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (4) of this section;
(6) The territorial sea;
(7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (6) of this section; waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States.
Click to expand...

If this farmer was a smart and competent business man, he could have used any of the numerous tools and flexibilities the law allows for. Potentially he could have gotten certain waivers that apply to cropland. Or he could have a permit so he could have modified the drainage on his land legally.

The worst and most incompetent decision he could have made as a business man was to be recalcitrant.

That said, he will get his day in court. No way he ends up paying a 2.8 million dollar fine. That might be what he is potentially liable for. But I have rarely seen a case where the full weight and scope of financial consequences of the law is brought to bear.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top