The Briefing Room

General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: libertybele on May 25, 2017, 11:59:05 am

Title: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: libertybele on May 25, 2017, 11:59:05 am
This is one example of the FEDS ability to control us with regulations and fines. They could potentially fine, tax or regulate what we plant in our individual gardens.  If this farmer is forced to pay this fine, what is next?  Regulation and taxes on all consumables such as the energy we use to heat and cool our homes or our water usage?

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

RED BLUFF, Calif. —  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.

“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, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation. The libertarian-leaning nonprofit fights for private property rights and limited government.

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

However, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller agreed with the Army Corps in a judgment issued in June. A 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, Calif., bought 450 acres about 10 miles south of Red Bluff...........

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/05/24/farmer-plowing-fine/339756001/
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: mountaineer on May 25, 2017, 12:15:32 pm
 **nononono*
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: libertybele on May 25, 2017, 01:41:34 pm
I wonder if the Feds want this land?  This is in a way similar to the BLM who fined Cliven Bundy for grazing permits and fees.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Taxcontrol on May 25, 2017, 02:39:59 pm
This is no where near the Bundy case.  In this case, the farmer owns the land.  In the Bundy case, not only did Bundy NOT own the land (was leasing from BLM), he let the lease lapse, and STILL grazed his cattle on public lands that were leased to someone else.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: DiogenesLamp on May 25, 2017, 02:43:19 pm
"Wickard." 

Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Suppressed on May 25, 2017, 02:48:10 pm
It wasn't the plowing of the field... it was depositing material into wetlands, in violation of the Clean Water Act.

Quote
...

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

Duarte disturbed portions of the property that included wetland areas, the U.S. attorney alleges.

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

...
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: edpc on May 25, 2017, 02:48:39 pm
In the 1800s, many people kept moving west for opportunity, freedom, and distance between them and the federal government.  Odd how CA has become one of the most regulated states, over time.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Suppressed on May 25, 2017, 02:48:40 pm
This is no where near the Bundy case.  In this case, the farmer owns the land.  In the Bundy case, not only did Bundy NOT own the land (was leasing from BLM), he let the lease lapse, and STILL grazed his cattle on public lands that were leased to someone else.

Yup.  Bundy was a leech.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: driftdiver on May 25, 2017, 02:51:08 pm
It wasn't the plowing of the field... it was depositing material into wetlands, in violation of the Clean Water Act.

The Federal govt is abusing the Clean Water Act in an attempt to control all land within the United States.   
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Suppressed on May 25, 2017, 02:58:01 pm
The Federal govt is abusing the Clean Water Act in an attempt to control all land within the United States.

Maybe so, but The People don't seem to care to do anything about it via their elected representatives, public-comment periods, etc., except whine.

The Left posts holds candlelight vigils in "symbolic ineffectuality".  The Right whines on message boards.  The government gains power.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: driftdiver on May 25, 2017, 03:02:26 pm
Maybe so, but The People don't seem to care to do anything about it via their elected representatives, public-comment periods, etc., except whine.

The Left posts holds candlelight vigils in "symbolic ineffectuality".  The Right whines on message boards.  The government gains power.

I see you are here "whining."  I guess thats ok when you agree with the subject at hand, like big govt getting bigger.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: 240B on May 25, 2017, 03:07:52 pm
The Federal govt is abusing the Clean Water Act in an attempt to control all land within the United States.


The EPA also wants to control every drop of water in the country as well as all the land. There is no such thing as a private water source anymore. I cannot verify this personally, but I have read that even water collected off a roof into a rain barrel is still under the control of the EPA. All private ponds, or privately constructed irrigation systems are all under the control of the EPA, even their primary water source is rain.


So, you could say that the government owns all the rain, I guess?
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Suppressed on May 25, 2017, 03:36:22 pm

The EPA also wants to control every drop of water in the country as well as all the land. There is no such thing as a private water source anymore. I cannot verify this personally, but I have read that even water collected off a roof into a rain barrel is still under the control of the EPA. All private ponds, or privately constructed irrigation systems are all under the control of the EPA, even their primary water source is rain.


So, you could say that the government owns all the rain, I guess?

It's the states that do that, not the EPA.  Because people don't buy the right to that rainwater... like a property can be bought without rights to the minerals under it.  Intercepting the recharging precipitation is therefore illegal.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Just_Victor on May 25, 2017, 03:58:12 pm
The Federal govt is abusing the Clean Water Act in an attempt to control all land within the United States.

"Seasonal wetland" - a.k.a. puddle.

Debris and silt naturally collect in low spots.  If he used a farm implement to move soil from high spots to low spots, all he did was speed up the natural process.

The EPA needs to get a grip.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Bigun on May 25, 2017, 04:02:45 pm
"Seasonal wetland" - a.k.a. puddle.

Debris and silt naturally collect in low spots.  If he used a farm implement to move soil from high spots to low spots, all he did was speed up the natural process.

The EPA needs to get a grip.

The EPA needs to get gone if you ask me!
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Just_Victor on May 25, 2017, 04:11:17 pm
The EPA needs to get gone if you ask me!
:beer:  I'm good with that.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: DiogenesLamp on May 25, 2017, 04:41:37 pm
The Federal govt is abusing the Clean Water Act in an attempt to control all land within the United States.


This.   "Suppressed"  up above quoted that these "rippers"  cut 10" into the soil,  as if to distinguish their effect from a "plow",   which cuts how deep into the soil?   7?  8?   Perhaps even 10 inches? 


I've pulled a plow with a tractor years ago,  and i'm not seeing the difference between what a plow would do or what a "ripper"  would do.   


Yes,  the Government is abusing the clean water act to control land. 


Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: DiogenesLamp on May 25, 2017, 04:47:54 pm
Maybe so, but The People don't seem to care to do anything about it via their elected representatives, public-comment periods, etc., except whine.

The Left posts holds candlelight vigils in "symbolic ineffectuality".  The Right whines on message boards.  The government gains power.


The left has a Trillion dollar Broadcasting infrastructure to carry their message. 


That is all that matters in this game.   
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: EC on May 25, 2017, 04:49:31 pm

This.   "Suppressed"  up above quoted that these "rippers"  cut 10" into the soil,  as if to distinguish their effect from a "plow",   which cuts how deep into the soil?   7?  8?   Perhaps even 10 inches? 


I've pulled a plow with a tractor years ago,  and i'm not seeing the difference between what a plow would do or what a "ripper"  would do.

A ripper is basically a coulter only plow. They cut maybe half an inch deeper than a plow does, and are usually only used on land that has been fallow for decades, where the soil has compacted enough to cause the plowshares problems, or on heay clay soils.

Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: DiogenesLamp on May 25, 2017, 04:52:54 pm
It's the states that do that, not the EPA.  Because people don't buy the right to that rainwater... like a property can be bought without rights to the minerals under it.  Intercepting the recharging precipitation is therefore illegal.



This statement leads me to think that you must butter your bread in an agency for which this is not an abstract discussion topic. 

I can't see anyone not involved in this on the regulatory side making such a statement.   

"Intercepting the recharging precipitation is therefore illegal." ? 


Who talks like that except someone in business of enforcing such power grabs on the rest of us? 



Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Weird Tolkienish Figure on May 25, 2017, 04:53:07 pm
It wasn't the plowing of the field... it was depositing material into wetlands, in violation of the Clean Water Act.

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

Now I know nothing about farming... but isn't that plowing? Or tilling?

Reading this again, the act of plowing deposited dirt onto the wetlands.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: DiogenesLamp on May 25, 2017, 04:55:28 pm
A ripper is basically a coulter only plow. They cut maybe half an inch deeper than a plow does, and are usually only used on land that has been fallow for decades, where the soil has compacted enough to cause the plowshares problems, or on heavy clay soils.


So the term "Plowing the field"  may not be technically correct,   but it is close enough so as to be indistinguishable to the layman.   




Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Bigun on May 25, 2017, 04:55:54 pm
Now I know nothing about farming... but isn't that plowing? Or tilling?

Reading this again, the act of plowing deposited dirt onto the wetlands.

Where I come from it's called renovating or sub soiling. Has to be done once in a whine when farming heavy soils or they become to compacted.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: EC on May 25, 2017, 04:59:07 pm

So the term "Plowing the field"  may not be technically correct,   but it is close enough so as to be indistinguishable to the layman.

Yep. You can use them pretty much interchangably. Rippers are first plowing, or sodbreaking. They don't turn the soil, they just break it.

Just remembered - you also use them to plow in snow (that's an old technique for soil improvement, not much used any more). Last time I saw that done was by my grandfather - I must have been about 5 then.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: libertybele on May 25, 2017, 05:00:38 pm
The EPA needs to get gone if you ask me!

Along with the BLM and BATF.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: EC on May 25, 2017, 05:03:04 pm
Along with the BLM and BATF.

Both BLM's?  :tongue2:
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: driftdiver on May 25, 2017, 05:07:29 pm
It's the states that do that, not the EPA.  Because people don't buy the right to that rainwater... like a property can be bought without rights to the minerals under it.  Intercepting the recharging precipitation is therefore illegal.

@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. 

The EPA has claimed the power to regulate everything down to puddles under the logic that the water eventually will end up in a river, lake or ocean.   This is not tied into the collection of rain water as the EPA has only claimed regulatory power over water once it hits the ground (that I know of).   There was a recent court case which pushed back on the EPA but I think the case was still up in the air.   The new EPA Director (Trumps appointee) is probably going to drastically change the EPAs direction based on his public statements.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Bigun on May 25, 2017, 05:09:03 pm
Along with the BLM and BATF.

And a dozen others!
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Free Vulcan on May 25, 2017, 05:13:58 pm
Here we call rippers chisel plows. Unlike the traditional bottom plow, chisel plows have a very thin spike that doesn't turn the soil, but 'rips' it about a foot or so below the ground to breakup hardpan. The two pics below show the differences.

Chisel plow:

(http://landoll.com/content/files/9813/7512/4567/ChiselPlow-PhotoGallery6_1000x667px.jpg)

Bottom plow:

(http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/111044772744-0-1/s-l1000.jpg)

So while technically he was plowing his field, he really wasn't, not at least in the traditional sense of the word.

Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: INVAR on May 25, 2017, 05:25:20 pm
I find it amazing how comfortable we've grown to abject despotism and tyranny.

We spilled blood for far less intrusions on our rights from the Crown than what we put up with willingly from the Beast in DC.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Bigun on May 25, 2017, 05:29:50 pm
I find it amazing how comfortable we've grown to abject despotism and tyranny.

We spilled blood for far less intrusions on our rights from the Crown than what we put up with willingly from the Beast in DC.

One of the penalties for knowing who your ancestors are and what they did to bring forth this country is that such things as you mention makes one very ill!
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Free Vulcan on May 25, 2017, 05:31:45 pm
It reads to me that at most he should get a slap on the wrist to nothing at all. I'm also not totally convinced the Fedgov has jurisdiction here.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: rodamala on May 25, 2017, 05:54:50 pm
It reads to me that at most he should get a slap on the wrist to nothing at all. I'm also not totally convinced the Fedgov has jurisdiction here.

As per Title 40 CFR Part 232.3, they do not.


§ 232.3 - Activities not requiring permits.

Except as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, any discharge of dredged or fill material that may result from any of the activities described in paragraph (c) of this section is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation under this part.
(a) If any discharge of dredged or fill material resulting from the activities listed in paragraph (c) of this section contains any toxic pollutant listed under section 307 of the Act, such discharge shall be subject to any applicable toxic effluent standard or prohibition, and shall require a section 404 permit.
(b) Any discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States incidental to any of the activities identified in paragraph (c) of this section must have a permit if it is part of an activity whose purpose is to convert an area of the waters of the United States into a use to which it was not previously subject, where the flow or circulation of waters of the United States may be impaired or the reach of such waters reduced. Where the proposed discharge will result in significant discernable alterations to flow or circulation, the presumption is that flow or circulation may be impaired by such alteration.
Note:
For example, a permit will be required for the conversion of a cypress swamp to some other use or the conversion of a wetland from silvicultural to agricultural use when there is a discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States in conjunction with constuction of dikes, drainage ditches or other works or structures used to effect such conversion. A conversion of section 404 wetland to a non-wetland is a change in use of an area of waters of the U.S. A discharge which elevates the bottom of waters of the United States without converting it to dry land does not thereby reduce the reach of, but may alter the flow or circulation of, waters of the United States.
(c) The following activities are exempt from section 404 permit requirements, except as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section:
(1)(i) Normal farming, silviculture and ranching activities such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, and harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest products, or upland soil and water conservation practices, as defined in paragraph (d) of this section.
(ii)(A) To fall under this exemption, the activities specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section must be part of an established (i.e., ongong) farming, silviculture, or ranching operation, and must be in accordance with definitions in paragraph (d) of this section. Activities on areas lying fallow as part of a conventional rotational cycle are part of an established operation.
(B) Activities which bring an area into farming, silviculture or ranching use are not part of an established operation. An operation ceases to be established when the area in which it was conducted has been converted to another use or has lain idle so long that modifications to the hydrological regime are necessary to resume operation. If an activity takes place outside the waters of the United States, or if it does not involve a discharge, it does not need a section 404 permit whether or not it was part of an es-tab-lished farming, silviculture or ranching -operation.
(2) Maintenance, including emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently serviceable structures such as dikes, dams, levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, cause-ways, bridge abutments or approaches, -and transportation structures. Maintenance does not include any modification that changes the character, scope, or size of the original fill design. Emergency reconstruction must occur within a reasonable period of time after damage occurs in order to qualify for this exemption.
(3) Construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches or the maintenance (but not construction) of drainage ditches. Discharge associated with siphons, pumps, headgates, wingwalls, wiers, diversion structures, and such other facilities as are appurtenant and functionally related to irrigation ditches are included in this exemption.
(4) Construction of temporary sedimentation basins on a construction site which does not include placement of fill material into waters of the United States. The term “construction site” refers to any site involving the erection of buildings, roads, and other discrete structures and the installation of support facilities necessary for construction and utilization of such structures. The term also includes any other land areas which involve land-disturbing excavation activities, including quarrying or other mining activities, where an increase in the runoff of sediment is controlled through the use of temporary sedimentation basins.
(5) Any activity with respect to which a State has an approved program under section 208(b)(4) of the Act which meets the requirements of section 208(b)(4)(B) and (C).
(6) Construction or maintenance of farm roads, forest roads, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment, where such roads are constructed and maintained in accordance with best management practices (BMPs) to assure that flow and circulation patterns and chemical and biological characteristics of waters of the United States are not impaired, that the reach of the waters of the United States is not reduced, and that any adverse effect on the aquatic environment will be otherwise minimized. The BMPs which must be applied to satisfy this provision include the following baseline provisions:
(i) Permanent roads (for farming or forestry activities), temporary access roads (for mining, forestry, or farm purposes) and skid trails (for logging) in waters of the United States shall be held to the minimum feasible number, width, and total length consistent -with the purpose of specific farming, -silvicultural or mining operations, -and local topographic and climatic -conditions;
(ii) All roads, temporary or permanent, shall be located sufficiently far from streams or other water bodies (except for portions of such roads which must cross water bodies) to minimize discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States;
(iii) The road fill shall be bridged, culverted, or otherwise designed to prevent the restriction of expected flood flows;
(iv) The fill shall be properly stabilized and maintained to prevent erosion during and following construction;
(v) Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States to construct a road fill shall be made in a manner that minimizes the encroachment of trucks, tractors, bulldozers, or other heavy equipment within the waters of the United States (including adjacent wetlands) that lie outside the lateral boundaries of the fill itself;
(vi) In designing, constructing, and maintaining roads, vegetative disturbance in the waters of the United States shall be kept to a minimum;
(vii) The design, construction and maintenance of the road crossing shall not disrupt the migration or other movement of those species of aquatic life inhabiting the water body;
(viii) Borrow material shall be taken from upland sources whenever feasible;
(ix) The discharge shall not take, or jeopardize the continued existence of, a threatened or endangered species as defined under the Endangered Species Act, or adversely modify or destroy the critical habitat of such species;
(x) Discharges into breeding and nesting areas for migratory waterfowl, spawning areas, and wetlands shall be avoided if practical alternatives exist;
(xi) The discharge shall not be located in the proximity of a public water supply intake;
(xii) The discharge shall not occur -in areas of concentrated shellfish -production;
(xiii) The discharge shall not occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System;
(xiv) The discharge of material shall consist of suitable material free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts; and
(xv) All temporary fills shall be removed in their entirety and the area restored to its original elevation.
(d) For purpose of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, cultivating, harvesting, minor drainage, plowing, and seeding are defined as follows:
(1) Cultivating means physical methods of soil treatment employed within established farming, ranching and silviculture lands on farm, ranch, or forest crops to aid and improve their growth, quality, or yield.
(2) Harvesting means physical measures employed directly upon farm, forest, or ranch crops within established agricultural and silvicultural lands to bring about their removal from farm, forest, or ranch land, but does not include the construction of farm, forest, or ranch roads.
(3)(i) Minor drainage means:
(A) The discharge of dredged or fill material incidental to connecting upland drainage facilities to waters of the United States, adequate to effect the removal of excess soil moisture from upland croplands. Construction and maintenance of upland (dryland) facilities, such as ditching and tiling, incidental to the planting, cultivating, protecting, or harvesting of crops, involve no discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and as such never require a section 404 permit;
(B) The discharge of dredged or fill material for the purpose of installing ditching or other water control facilities incidental to planting, cultivating, protecting, or harvesting of rice, cranberries or other wetland crop species, where these activities and the discharge occur in waters of the United States which are in established use for such agricultural and silvicultural wetland crop production;
(C) The discharge of dredged or fill material for the purpose of manipulating the water levels of, or regulating the flow or distribution of water within, existing impoundments which have been constructed in accordance with applicable requirements of the Act, and which are in established use for the production or rice, cranberries, or other wetland crop species.
Note:
The provisions of paragraphs (d)(3)(i) (B) and (C) of this section apply to areas that are in established use exclusively for wetland crop production as well as areas in established use for conventional wetland/non-wetland crop rotation (e.g., the rotations of rice and soybeans) where such rotation results in the cyclical or intermittent temporary dewatering of such areas.
(D) The discharge of dredged or fill material incidental to the emergency removal of sandbars, gravel bars, or other similar blockages which are formed during flood flows or other events, where such blockages close or constrict previously existing drain-age-ways and, if not promptly removed, would result in damage to or loss of existing crops or would impair or prevent the plowing, seeding, harvesting or cultivating of crops on land in established use for crop production. Such removal does not include enlarging or extending the dimensions of, or changing the bottom elevations of, the affected drainageway as it existed prior to the formation of the blockage. Removal must be accomplished within one year after such blockages are discovered in order to be eligible for exemption.
(ii) Minor drainage in waters of the United States is limited to drainage within areas that are part of an established farming or silviculture operation. It does not include drainage associated with the immediate or gradual conversion of a wetland to a non-wetland (e.g., wetland species to upland species not typically adequate to life in saturated soil conditions), or conversion from one wetland use to another (for example, silviculture to farming).
In addition, minor drainage does not include the construction of any canal, ditch, dike or other waterway or structure which drains or otherwise significantly modifies a stream, lake, swamp, bog or any other wetland or aquatic area constituting waters of the United States. Any discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States incidental to the construction of any such structure or waterway -requires a permit.
(4) Plowing means all forms of primary tillage, including moldboard, chisel, or wide-blade plowing, discing, harrowing, and similar physical means used on farm, forest or ranch land for the breaking up, cutting, turning over, or stirring of soil to prepare it for the planting of crops. Plowing does not include the redistribution of soil, rock, sand, or other surficial materials in a manner which changes any area of the waters of the United States to dryland. For example, the redistribution of surface materials by blading, grading, or other means to fill in wetland areas is not plowing. Rock crushing activities which result in the loss of natural drainage characteristics, the reduction of water storage and recharge capabilities, or the overburden of natural water filtration capacities do not constitute plowing. Plowing, as described above, will never involve a discharge of dredged or fill material.
(5) Seeding means the sowing of seed and placement of seedlings to produce farm, ranch, or forest crops and includes the placement of soil beds for seeds or seedlings on established farm and forest lands.
(e) Federal projects which qualify under the criteria contained in section 404(r) of the Act are exempt from section 404 permit requirements, but may be subject to other State or Federal requirements.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: driftdiver on May 25, 2017, 05:58:53 pm
As per Title 40 CFR Part 232.3, they do not.


§ 232.3 - Activities not requiring permits.

Except as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, any discharge of dredged or fill material that may result from any of the activities described in paragraph (c) of this section is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation under this part.
(a) If any discharge of dredged or fill material resulting from the activities listed in paragraph (c) of this section contains any toxic pollutant listed under section 307 of the Act, such discharge shall be subject to any applicable toxic effluent standard or prohibition, and shall require a section 404 permit.
(b) Any discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States incidental to any of the activities identified in paragraph (c) of this section must have a permit if it is part of an activity whose purpose is to convert an area of the waters of the United States into a use to which it was not previously subject, where the flow or circulation of waters of the United States may be impaired or the reach of such waters reduced. Where the proposed discharge will result in significant discernable alterations to flow or circulation, the presumption is that flow or circulation may be impaired by such alteration.
Note:
For example, a permit will be required for the conversion of a cypress swamp to some other use or the conversion of a wetland from silvicultural to agricultural use when there is a discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States in conjunction with constuction of dikes, drainage ditches or other works or structures used to effect such conversion. A conversion of section 404 wetland to a non-wetland is a change in use of an area of waters of the U.S. A discharge which elevates the bottom of waters of the United States without converting it to dry land does not thereby reduce the reach of, but may alter the flow or circulation of, waters of the United States.
(c) The following activities are exempt from section 404 permit requirements, except as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section:
(1)(i) Normal farming, silviculture and ranching activities such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, and harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest products, or upland soil and water conservation practices, as defined in paragraph (d) of this section.
(ii)(A) To fall under this exemption, the activities specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section must be part of an established (i.e., ongong) farming, silviculture, or ranching operation, and must be in accordance with definitions in paragraph (d) of this section. Activities on areas lying fallow as part of a conventional rotational cycle are part of an established operation.
(B) Activities which bring an area into farming, silviculture or ranching use are not part of an established operation. An operation ceases to be established when the area in which it was conducted has been converted to another use or has lain idle so long that modifications to the hydrological regime are necessary to resume operation. If an activity takes place outside the waters of the United States, or if it does not involve a discharge, it does not need a section 404 permit whether or not it was part of an es-tab-lished farming, silviculture or ranching -operation.
(2) Maintenance, including emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently serviceable structures such as dikes, dams, levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, cause-ways, bridge abutments or approaches, -and transportation structures. Maintenance does not include any modification that changes the character, scope, or size of the original fill design. Emergency reconstruction must occur within a reasonable period of time after damage occurs in order to qualify for this exemption.
(3) Construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches or the maintenance (but not construction) of drainage ditches. Discharge associated with siphons, pumps, headgates, wingwalls, wiers, diversion structures, and such other facilities as are appurtenant and functionally related to irrigation ditches are included in this exemption.
(4) Construction of temporary sedimentation basins on a construction site which does not include placement of fill material into waters of the United States. The term “construction site” refers to any site involving the erection of buildings, roads, and other discrete structures and the installation of support facilities necessary for construction and utilization of such structures. The term also includes any other land areas which involve land-disturbing excavation activities, including quarrying or other mining activities, where an increase in the runoff of sediment is controlled through the use of temporary sedimentation basins.
(5) Any activity with respect to which a State has an approved program under section 208(b)(4) of the Act which meets the requirements of section 208(b)(4)(B) and (C).
(6) Construction or maintenance of farm roads, forest roads, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment, where such roads are constructed and maintained in accordance with best management practices (BMPs) to assure that flow and circulation patterns and chemical and biological characteristics of waters of the United States are not impaired, that the reach of the waters of the United States is not reduced, and that any adverse effect on the aquatic environment will be otherwise minimized. The BMPs which must be applied to satisfy this provision include the following baseline provisions:
(i) Permanent roads (for farming or forestry activities), temporary access roads (for mining, forestry, or farm purposes) and skid trails (for logging) in waters of the United States shall be held to the minimum feasible number, width, and total length consistent -with the purpose of specific farming, -silvicultural or mining operations, -and local topographic and climatic -conditions;
(ii) All roads, temporary or permanent, shall be located sufficiently far from streams or other water bodies (except for portions of such roads which must cross water bodies) to minimize discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States;
(iii) The road fill shall be bridged, culverted, or otherwise designed to prevent the restriction of expected flood flows;
(iv) The fill shall be properly stabilized and maintained to prevent erosion during and following construction;
(v) Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States to construct a road fill shall be made in a manner that minimizes the encroachment of trucks, tractors, bulldozers, or other heavy equipment within the waters of the United States (including adjacent wetlands) that lie outside the lateral boundaries of the fill itself;
(vi) In designing, constructing, and maintaining roads, vegetative disturbance in the waters of the United States shall be kept to a minimum;
(vii) The design, construction and maintenance of the road crossing shall not disrupt the migration or other movement of those species of aquatic life inhabiting the water body;
(viii) Borrow material shall be taken from upland sources whenever feasible;
(ix) The discharge shall not take, or jeopardize the continued existence of, a threatened or endangered species as defined under the Endangered Species Act, or adversely modify or destroy the critical habitat of such species;
(x) Discharges into breeding and nesting areas for migratory waterfowl, spawning areas, and wetlands shall be avoided if practical alternatives exist;
(xi) The discharge shall not be located in the proximity of a public water supply intake;
(xii) The discharge shall not occur -in areas of concentrated shellfish -production;
(xiii) The discharge shall not occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System;
(xiv) The discharge of material shall consist of suitable material free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts; and
(xv) All temporary fills shall be removed in their entirety and the area restored to its original elevation.
(d) For purpose of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, cultivating, harvesting, minor drainage, plowing, and seeding are defined as follows:
(1) Cultivating means physical methods of soil treatment employed within established farming, ranching and silviculture lands on farm, ranch, or forest crops to aid and improve their growth, quality, or yield.
(2) Harvesting means physical measures employed directly upon farm, forest, or ranch crops within established agricultural and silvicultural lands to bring about their removal from farm, forest, or ranch land, but does not include the construction of farm, forest, or ranch roads.
(3)(i) Minor drainage means:
(A) The discharge of dredged or fill material incidental to connecting upland drainage facilities to waters of the United States, adequate to effect the removal of excess soil moisture from upland croplands. Construction and maintenance of upland (dryland) facilities, such as ditching and tiling, incidental to the planting, cultivating, protecting, or harvesting of crops, involve no discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and as such never require a section 404 permit;
(B) The discharge of dredged or fill material for the purpose of installing ditching or other water control facilities incidental to planting, cultivating, protecting, or harvesting of rice, cranberries or other wetland crop species, where these activities and the discharge occur in waters of the United States which are in established use for such agricultural and silvicultural wetland crop production;
(C) The discharge of dredged or fill material for the purpose of manipulating the water levels of, or regulating the flow or distribution of water within, existing impoundments which have been constructed in accordance with applicable requirements of the Act, and which are in established use for the production or rice, cranberries, or other wetland crop species.
Note:
The provisions of paragraphs (d)(3)(i) (B) and (C) of this section apply to areas that are in established use exclusively for wetland crop production as well as areas in established use for conventional wetland/non-wetland crop rotation (e.g., the rotations of rice and soybeans) where such rotation results in the cyclical or intermittent temporary dewatering of such areas.
(D) The discharge of dredged or fill material incidental to the emergency removal of sandbars, gravel bars, or other similar blockages which are formed during flood flows or other events, where such blockages close or constrict previously existing drain-age-ways and, if not promptly removed, would result in damage to or loss of existing crops or would impair or prevent the plowing, seeding, harvesting or cultivating of crops on land in established use for crop production. Such removal does not include enlarging or extending the dimensions of, or changing the bottom elevations of, the affected drainageway as it existed prior to the formation of the blockage. Removal must be accomplished within one year after such blockages are discovered in order to be eligible for exemption.
(ii) Minor drainage in waters of the United States is limited to drainage within areas that are part of an established farming or silviculture operation. It does not include drainage associated with the immediate or gradual conversion of a wetland to a non-wetland (e.g., wetland species to upland species not typically adequate to life in saturated soil conditions), or conversion from one wetland use to another (for example, silviculture to farming).
In addition, minor drainage does not include the construction of any canal, ditch, dike or other waterway or structure which drains or otherwise significantly modifies a stream, lake, swamp, bog or any other wetland or aquatic area constituting waters of the United States. Any discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States incidental to the construction of any such structure or waterway -requires a permit.
(4) Plowing means all forms of primary tillage, including moldboard, chisel, or wide-blade plowing, discing, harrowing, and similar physical means used on farm, forest or ranch land for the breaking up, cutting, turning over, or stirring of soil to prepare it for the planting of crops. Plowing does not include the redistribution of soil, rock, sand, or other surficial materials in a manner which changes any area of the waters of the United States to dryland. For example, the redistribution of surface materials by blading, grading, or other means to fill in wetland areas is not plowing. Rock crushing activities which result in the loss of natural drainage characteristics, the reduction of water storage and recharge capabilities, or the overburden of natural water filtration capacities do not constitute plowing. Plowing, as described above, will never involve a discharge of dredged or fill material.
(5) Seeding means the sowing of seed and placement of seedlings to produce farm, ranch, or forest crops and includes the placement of soil beds for seeds or seedlings on established farm and forest lands.
(e) Federal projects which qualify under the criteria contained in section 404(r) of the Act are exempt from section 404 permit requirements, but may be subject to other State or Federal requirements.

This action isn't being taken under the letter of the law.  Its being taken on an interpretation of the law that the Federal Govt agencies have elected to use.   That interpretation is that all water eventually ends up in a body of water subject to the Clean Water Act.  Therefor the federal govt has jurisdiction over all water except that which is in our pipes.   

Drainage, puddles, streams, and so on even if they are seasonal or only appear after heavy rains.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: rodamala on May 25, 2017, 06:03:53 pm
This action isn't being taken under the letter of the law.

That would make this action... um... illegal.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Joe Wooten on May 25, 2017, 06:30:05 pm
That would make this action... um... illegal.

That has not been an obstacle for the fedgov for a while...
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: INVAR on May 25, 2017, 06:33:23 pm
That would make this action... um... illegal.

There was a period of time when "laws" that were made to infringe upon our rights were simply ignored, declared void and then resisted with extreme prejudice upon anyone attempting to force their will upon us.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Smokin Joe on May 25, 2017, 06:42:42 pm

This.   "Suppressed"  up above quoted that these "rippers"  cut 10" into the soil,  as if to distinguish their effect from a "plow",   which cuts how deep into the soil?   7?  8?   Perhaps even 10 inches? 


I've pulled a plow with a tractor years ago,  and i'm not seeing the difference between what a plow would do or what a "ripper"  would do.   


Yes,  the Government is abusing the clean water act to control land.
It would not be the first time the government has used water as a reason to control land, and these folks had deeded water rights. Most lost their farms. http://jeffhead.com/klamath/ (http://jeffhead.com/klamath/)
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/07/09/water-fight.htm (https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/07/09/water-fight.htm)
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: rodamala on May 25, 2017, 06:43:58 pm
There was a period of time when "laws" that were made to infringe upon our rights were simply ignored, declared void and then resisted with extreme prejudice upon anyone attempting to force their will upon us.

I look forward to the day someone from the government comes trespassing on my farm so can tell them, at gunpoint, to promptly go f*** their hat.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: rodamala on May 25, 2017, 06:50:22 pm
One of the few times I know DJT did the right thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riSxBAtmHF8
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: driftdiver on May 25, 2017, 06:51:41 pm
I look forward to the day someone from the government comes trespassing on my farm so can tell them, at gunpoint, to promptly go f*** their hat.

We see how that turned out in a couple recent cases.   Big govt will not be denied their power.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Bigun on May 25, 2017, 06:54:07 pm
I look forward to the day someone from the government comes trespassing on my farm so can tell them, at gunpoint, to promptly go f*** their hat.

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!!!
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: mirraflake on May 25, 2017, 06:56:05 pm




I've pulled a plow with a tractor years ago,  and i'm not seeing the difference between what a plow would do or what a "ripper"  would do.   



Plow turns over the soil(covering up the top grass layer)  while the ripper just does as it implies rips up the soil.

@DiogenesLamp
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: mirraflake on May 25, 2017, 07:02:08 pm
We have a 1 acre pond on our property that is quite swampy at one end and could definitely classify as wetlands.

A soon as it dries out this summer Memorial day weekend when the gov't is out on vacation  a friend is coming in and doing some dirt work to get rid of the wetland.

Same guy who installed a septic tank and small leachfield for my wifes horse barn that we did not want to get a permit over..  What septic tank?
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: rodamala on May 25, 2017, 07:10:30 pm
Plow turns over the soil(covering up the top grass layer)  while the ripper just does as it implies rips up the soil.

@DiogenesLamp

A chisel plow is, as previously mentioned, for breaking hardpan or compacted soil.  It also aerates the soil.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: INVAR on May 25, 2017, 07:20:42 pm
We see how that turned out in a couple recent cases.   Big govt will not be denied their power.

Better to die free than live as a slave.

But some prefer slavery as long as they are provided for.

Such is the disposition of human nature: to suffer evil while evils are sufferable rather than abolish to that which they have grown accustomed.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Bigun on May 25, 2017, 07:25:42 pm
Better to die free than live as a slave.

But some prefer slavery as long as they are provided for.

Such is the disposition of human nature: to suffer evil while evils are sufferable rather than abolish to that which they have grown accustomed.

“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”

 
Voltaire
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: INVAR on May 25, 2017, 07:47:26 pm
“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”

Or the chains they simply accept because there's no point risking anything when one has no chance to exercise liberty.

Or, I love this one: "The price we have to pay for living in a free country with benefits and services for all".
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: roamer_1 on May 25, 2017, 07:51:17 pm
A ripper is basically a coulter only plow. They cut maybe half an inch deeper than a plow does, and are usually only used on land that has been fallow for decades, where the soil has compacted enough to cause the plowshares problems, or on heay clay soils.

That's right, with the exception of a ripper necessarily cutting deeper - That is wholly a function of the depth of the shank on the ripper,and the depth of the face of the plow.

I would add that the function is different - A ripper loosens the soil and also allows water to enter (and retain) within the ground. Often, rippers are intentionally run deeper than the plow for that reason - so the land can hold water and withstand drought.

I have ripped pastures and hayfields, without plowing, precisely for that purpose. Get it wet and roll it with a packer to restore the smoothness of the top, and you have a field that will stay green long into summer.

And you are right on wrt ripping being the first stage in reclaiming a long fallow field. it allows the plow to get into the ground, and turn it much easier than otherwise.

To suggest that rippers are not a typical part of agricultural use, not to mention farming, is ridiculous.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: rodamala on May 25, 2017, 09:44:26 pm
To suggest that rippers are not a typical part of agricultural use, not to mention farming, is ridiculous.

Only thing worse than a lawyer is a lawyer working for the goverment.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: libertybele on May 25, 2017, 09:54:20 pm
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!!!

 :beer:   :silly:
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: bigheadfred on May 26, 2017, 01:51:12 am
I've used 'one' of these before. There was no spring action:

(https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/sites/gateway/files/styles/page_featured_image/public/Deep%20ripping%20-%20deep%20ripper.JPG?itok=OBQ2tMaj&c=a6101efe4dac26800e9bb3d510d380c8)

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:

(http://greatergallatin.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Root-Depths.jpg)
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: roamer_1 on May 26, 2017, 02:18:38 am
SHOW HIM YOUR BADGE!!!

 :silly: :silly: :silly:

Now that's funny, right there.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Bigun on May 26, 2017, 02:20:19 am
I've used 'one' of these before. There was no spring action:

(https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/sites/gateway/files/styles/page_featured_image/public/Deep%20ripping%20-%20deep%20ripper.JPG?itok=OBQ2tMaj&c=a6101efe4dac26800e9bb3d510d380c8)

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:

(http://greatergallatin.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Root-Depths.jpg)

 :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Bigun on May 26, 2017, 02:21:08 am
:silly: :silly: :silly:

Now that's funny, right there.

The federal agent didn't think so!  Not at all!
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: roamer_1 on May 26, 2017, 02:22:50 am
The federal agent didn't think so!  Not at all!

Oddly enough, that's alright with me.

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Smokin Joe on May 26, 2017, 02:35:13 am
The federal agent didn't think so!  Not at all!
Mess with the bull, get the horn....
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Bigun on May 26, 2017, 02:37:54 am
Mess with the bull, get the horn....

The man tried to tell him!
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Suppressed on May 26, 2017, 02:39:29 am
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.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Smokin Joe on May 26, 2017, 02:43:02 am
@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.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: RoosGirl on May 26, 2017, 02:45:51 am
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. 
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: 240B on May 26, 2017, 03:00:05 am
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?
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: roamer_1 on May 26, 2017, 03:03:12 am
The man tried to tell him!

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

 :shrug:
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Smokin Joe on May 26, 2017, 03:04:29 am
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.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: anubias on May 26, 2017, 03:05:01 am
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.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Smokin Joe on May 26, 2017, 03:07:57 am
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:
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: roamer_1 on May 26, 2017, 03:08:33 am
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.

Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Smokin Joe on May 26, 2017, 03:09:47 am
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.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: roamer_1 on May 26, 2017, 03:13:04 am
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.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: bigheadfred on May 26, 2017, 03:13:35 am
Try to put in some hydroelectric.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: RoosGirl on May 26, 2017, 03:17:51 am
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.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: Elderberry on May 26, 2017, 03:19:05 am
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.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: roamer_1 on May 26, 2017, 03:23:58 am
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.
Title: Re: He plowed his field; now he faces a $2.8 million fine
Post by: RoosGirl on May 26, 2017, 04:14:58 am
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.