He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine

[libertybele]

Reminds me of a very funny Texas story!

A federal agent showed up on a South Texas ranch with a search warrant.  The rancher told him to be his guest and offered to accompany him as he did what he needed to do The agent agreed and they toured the place for some time before coming to the gate for a small lot. The Agent stopped his vehicle and the rancher told him to be careful about going in there where upon the agent read him the riot act about being a federal agent and going where ever he damned well pleased.  The rancher said no more and the agent got out and walked through the gate. About two minutes latter the agent came running by with a very large bull right on his A$$ yelling for the rancher to help!  The rancher walked up to the gate and yelled SHOW HIM YOUR BADGE!!!

    

[bigheadfred]

I've used 'one' of these before. There was no spring action:



Years of plowing at the same depth creates a hardpan (we call it a plow pan) that your water and crop roots won't penetrate easily. so you need to break that pan once in a while.  Like @roamer_1 said. Wheat roots can go down about 5 or 6 feet. Or the depth of the moisture level. I could probably find data on other crops. Breaking the pan makes for healthier crops and better water use. It is essential to rip fields with heavier soils.

I went and looked:

[roamer_1]

SHOW HIM YOUR BADGE!!!

 

Now that's funny, right there.

[Bigun]

I've used 'one' of these before. There was no spring action:



Years of plowing at the same depth creates a hardpan (we call it a plow pan) that your water and crop roots won't penetrate easily. so you need to break that pan once in a while.  Like @roamer_1 said. Wheat roots can go down about 5 or 6 feet. Or the depth of the moisture level. I could probably find data on other crops. Breaking the pan makes for healthier crops and better water use. It is essential to rip fields with heavier soils.

I went and looked:

 

[Bigun]

Now that's funny, right there.

The federal agent didn't think so!  Not at all!

[roamer_1]

The federal agent didn't think so!  Not at all!

Oddly enough, that's alright with me.

 

[Smokin Joe]

The federal agent didn't think so!  Not at all!

Mess with the bull, get the horn....

[Bigun]

Mess with the bull, get the horn....

The man tried to tell him!

[Suppressed]

Both have claimed the power to regulate rain water.  The states restrict collection of rainwater under the logic that it can adversely effect downstream water supplies.  It really has nothing to do with the property because in most states that restrict collection of rainwater you cannot  "buy" the right to collect it.   Mineral rights are a different animal entirely. 

@driftdiver

Exactly.  You can't buy that right.  So if you intercept it, collect it, you're breaking the law.

[Smokin Joe]

@driftdiver

Exactly.  You can't buy that right.  So if you intercept it, collect it, you're breaking the law.

Riparian Rights were part of a lot of original land grants. In some places, there are deeded water rights as well. For the government to step in and declare those void would be a 'taking'. Note that Indian Tribes which have land on both sides of a river exert tribal riparian rights in spite of the ACoE or EPA.

[RoosGirl]

This reads to me like the guy knowingly plowed in the wetlands he had delineated because he knew he shouldn't plow in them.  Otherwise, why have the wetland survey done?  Not that I agree that FedGov should have control of every little depression that holds some water, but the way I read it the guy knew what he was buying and if I had to guess thought he wouldn't get caught.  He took the risk and they're throwing the book at him. 

[240B]

Regardless of all the legalisms and ostensible 'reasons', just as a person, as a free human being, it is hard to believe that the government owns rainfall. It is similar to saying that the government owns all the air that we breath, or that they own the sunshine. This indicates that nobody in America really 'owns' anything. Everything everyone has is more or less a rental from the government, who is the true 'landlord'. We are all simply 'surfs', working the land in partnership and under the control of the 'Noblemen' living in the castle on the hill.


Air, water, sunshine, dirt, is there nothing that is simply God given and natural. Is it possible to buy any land, anywhere, and to be able to say, 'This is mine. I own this.'? Does everything in life have to be controlled by some government bureaucrat?

[roamer_1]

The man tried to tell him!

LOL! He lit outta there like who flung the chunk!

 

[Smokin Joe]

Regardless of all the legalisms and ostensible 'reasons', just as a person, as a free human being, it is hard to believe that the government owns rainfall. It is similar to saying that the government owns all the air that we breath, or that they own the sunshine. This indicates that nobody in America really 'owns' anything. Everything everyone has is more or less a rental from the government, who is the true 'landlord'. We are all simply 'surfs', working the land in partnership and under the control of the 'Noblemen' living in the castle on the hill.


Air, water, sunshine, dirt, is there nothing that is simply God given and natural. Is it possible to buy any land, anywhere, and to be able to say, 'This is mine. I own this.'? Does everything in life have to be controlled by some government bureaucrat?

I agree. With the riparian rights stolen from our family by the State of Maryland we may have lost the mineral rights to 4 square miles of river bottom with what may be a completely untapped oil & gas field underneath.

[anubias]

Regardless of all the legalisms and ostensible 'reasons', just as a person, as a free human being, it is hard to believe that the government owns rainfall. It is similar to saying that the government owns all the air that we breath, or that they own the sunshine. This indicates that nobody in America really 'owns' anything. Everything everyone has is more or less a rental from the government, who is the true 'landlord'. We are all simply 'surfs', working the land in partnership and under the control of the 'Noblemen' living in the castle on the hill.


Air, water, sunshine, dirt, is there nothing that is simply God given and natural. Is it possible to buy any land, anywhere, and to be able to say, 'This is mine. I own this.'? Does everything in life have to be controlled by some government bureaucrat?

That already is the situation with the states as they will take your land if you don't pay your property taxes.

[Smokin Joe]

That already is the situation with the states as they will take your land if you don't pay your property taxes.

We tried to get rid of property taxes here a few years back. Initiated measure, and heavily lambasted by a well funded astroturf operation. The measure failed, and within a month, none of those 'homegrown, longstanding, property owners advocates' who opposed it had a connected phone or valid e-mail, and their websites brought back 404s.  :nometalk:

[roamer_1]

This reads to me like the guy knowingly plowed in the wetlands he had delineated because he knew he shouldn't plow in them.  Otherwise, why have the wetland survey done?  Not that I agree that FedGov should have control of every little depression that holds some water, but the way I read it the guy knew what he was buying and if I had to guess thought he wouldn't get caught.  He took the risk and they're throwing the book at him.

Prolly the fedgov disagreed with the wetlands engineer.

Happened all the time to me, building retaining walls and docks by the water... Dot every 'I' and cross every 'T', pay for permits, and studies, approval of design, and etc... Buy all the parts and start the work, and some self-important bunny huggin federal officer (or county, or state) shuts it all down on a technicality.

[Smokin Joe]

Prolly the fedgov disagreed with the wetlands engineer.

Happened all the time to me, building retaining walls and docks by the water... Dot every 'I' and cross every 'T', pay for permits, and studies, approval of design, and etc... Buy all the parts and start the work, and some self-important bunny huggin federal officer (or county, or state) shuts it all down on a technicality.

It doesn't help that some of those rules are like tax laws. No two feds interpret them the same, quite.

[roamer_1]

It doesn't help that some of those rules are like tax laws. No two feds interpret them the same, quite.

That's right... and then it is tied up in court, where few people have the money for the fight.

[bigheadfred]

Try to put in some hydroelectric.

[RoosGirl]

Prolly the fedgov disagreed with the wetlands engineer.

Happened all the time to me, building retaining walls and docks by the water... Dot every 'I' and cross every 'T', pay for permits, and studies, approval of design, and etc... Buy all the parts and start the work, and some self-important bunny huggin federal officer (or county, or state) shuts it all down on a technicality.

Yep, encountered that myself.  In a traditional site development we would additionally be required to have a buffer of certain width around all wetlands.  So, not only do owners lose use of the wetland, but also an area directly adjacent to it.  Of course, they can always pay for wetland mitigation.  Five years ago I believe that was running in the $25kish per acre, if I am remembering correctly.  It's a racket and I strongly disagree with it.  But, that doesn't change my opinion that based on my reading of the article this guy knew what he was doing and wagered on not getting caught.

[Elderberry]

He should have claimed that he plowed his field and planted his crops to increase the habitat for the Botta’s pocket gopher and Western harvest mouse.

[roamer_1]

Yep, encountered that myself.  In a traditional site development we would additionally be required to have a buffer of certain width around all wetlands.  So, not only do owners lose use of the wetland, but also an area directly adjacent to it.  Of course, they can always pay for wetland mitigation.  Five years ago I believe that was running in the $25kish per acre, if I am remembering correctly.  It's a racket and I strongly disagree with it.  But, that doesn't change my opinion that based on my reading of the article this guy knew what he was doing and wagered on not getting caught.

You're talking to the wrong guy. twenty thousand dollars came right off my kitchen table in only one such incident. My kids went hungry for their petty bullcrap - Do you know how long it takes to put 20 grand back?

So no, if there is a question, in my mind, the government is always wrong by default.

[RoosGirl]

You're talking to the wrong guy. twenty thousand dollars came right off my kitchen table in only one such incident. My kids went hungry for their petty bullcrap - Do you know how long it takes to put 20 grand back?

So no, if there is a question, in my mind, the government is always wrong by default.

You read me wrong though.  I'm not saying the guy was wrong to do what he did, nor the gov't right making claim over the wetlands.  I'm just saying it reads as though he knew what he was doing and chose to do it anyway; on that level I have no pity for him.  Now, if he did it because he wanted to fight over what his rights on his own property really are then good for him!  In fact I don't agree that the gov't *should* be able to do such a thing, but thanks to our feckless representatives the laws have been in place for some time now.  If someone has some real suggestion for some real action to bring about some real change, I am all ears.  It's a damn shame you had to go through what you did.