Federal Government Says a Farmer Broke the Law by Plowing His Land

[Ross]

Thanks to the Dictators Administration, Agenda 21 and the UN !

Federal Government Says
a Farmer Broke the Law
by Plowing His Land

BY KENNY STEIN
2 days ago

Earlier this month a federal court in California ruled that a farmer plowing his land without a permit from the federal government is breaking the law. In 2013, the Army Corps of Engineers, without any notice or due process, ordered the owners of Duarte Nursery to cease use of their land for allegedly violating the Clean Water Act (CWA). The violation: plowing. The California court agreed with the federal government's action, despite the fact the CWA specifically exempts normal agricultural activities like plowing from regulation.

This overreaching assertion of federal power is not an isolated incident. For decades, the EPA and the Army Corps have aggressively sought to stretch the bounds of the CWA. When Congress passed the CWA, the federal government was given regulatory authority over "navigable waters," which the statute additionally defines as "waters of the United States." While the word navigable may seem to have an obvious meaning to most Americans as bodies of water that can be navigated by watercraft, federal bureaucrats have identified these terms as a license for a massive regulatory land grab.

Asserting ambiguity, the EPA has tried to use the CWA language to claim control over essentially any water which eventually might find its way into a navigable waterway. They have asserted jurisdiction not just over logical sources like large tributaries of navigable waters or wetlands immediately adjacent to rivers but have tried to reach their regulatory arms to isolated puddles or dry stream beds which only see running water during large rainstorms. This overreach has been repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court, most recently in 2001 and 2006. But these repeated rebukes have not stopped the regulators.

In June of 2015, EPA finalized yet another rule seeking to broadly define "waters of the US" under the CWA. Like its previous attempts, this rule goes well beyond any reasonable definition of "navigable waters." The rule would require federal permits even for ditches and puddles, almost any water within the boundaries of the United States. This sort of excessive permitting requirement would impose new costs on virtually every American: not just farmers, but anyone who owns land.

Thankfully, this new rule has been put on hold nationwide for the moment by federal courts while its legality and constitutionality is challenged, but the danger remains. The bureaucrats have made clear with their repeated attempts at overreach using the CWA that they will not be dissuaded by the courts, even if this newest attempt is also struck down by the Supreme Court.

This saga shows the folly of broad grants of power to regulatory agencies. The bureaucracy cannot be trusted to use its powers with restraint. When the power of the regulatory state grows, the liberty of the American people diminishes. Reining in the power of the regulatory state should be a priority of all American citizens.

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/federal-government-says-farmer-broke-law-plowing-his-land

[Diane Amberg]

Now tell the rest of it. If the plowing is causing runoff into streams, etc.anyone can be asked to stop until they correct the problem. We have that here too. Farm runoff into the Chesapeake Bay causes problems. If that was not a problem for him, why was he told not to plow? If it was in error it should have been addressed and corrected. We have the same thing for firefighting water run off.If it's headed for a stream or lake, it has to be diked and cleaned up. We're used to it though. Clean water here is sacred.

[Wilma]

It is possible to control run off by plowing.  Farmers have been doing it as long as I can remember.  You just follow the contours of the land instead of the straight back and forth that used to be.  For badly sloped land, a specialist can contour the land to provide catch pools for the run off.  Of course it isn't going to control rainfull from cloud bursts, but it does control normal rainfull.

[Diane Amberg]

Of course it is. It's done here all the time. So what was he doing to cause them to tell him not to plow? Soil Bank? Cover for birds? (We had soil bank land here at one time...got paid NOT to plant.) I'd love to know the real story. Here, the chicken farmers, of which there are a great number, have to be sure there is no chicken manure run off.

[Ross]

Now tell the rest of it. If the plowing is causing runoff into streams, etc.anyone can be asked to stop until they correct the problem. We have that here too. Farm runoff into the Chesapeake Bay causes problems. If that was not a problem for him, why was he told not to plow? If it was in error it should have been addressed and corrected. We have the same thing for firefighting water run off.If it's headed for a stream or lake, it has to be diked and cleaned up. We're used to it though. Clean water here is sacred.

There is not a "rest of the story"! You can read whatever you want into the story and it changes nothing.
The fact the CWA specifically exempts normal agricultural activities like plowing from regulation, moots your make believe "the rest of the story". They care about money. They care about control.

Do you care about mud puddles?
Do you think mud puddles need Federal Government protection and control?

NO, None of this has anything to do with protecting anything.
It is simply about money and control. And they don't both have to go together.
But they usually do.

This stemmed from the United Nations Agenda 21 on sustainability. The UN is just an NGO that our Government bows down too !
Which again is all about control.

If our government gave a damn about preservation of anything don't you think they would care about protecting our Nations bird from extinction? The Bald Eagle.  No, they don't care about the Bald Eagle, they care about the money generated by wind farms.

There is not a, "rest of the story"! You can read whatever you want into the story and it changes nothing.
The fact the CWA specifically exempts normal agricultural activities like plowing from regulation moots your make believe "the rest of the story". they care about money.

[jarhead]

Quote from Ross:
The UN is just an NGO that our Government bows down too !

Right you are there Ross.Just like the Brits told the EU, it's way past time we tell the UN where to stick it and take their business elsewhere. Without the billions the USA pours into it every year it would probably fold like a bad poker hand.

[Ross]

The UN is a corrupt organization with dictators and such sitting on the board.

Take a guess at how much the US contributes to the United Nations every year. Seventy million dollars? Seven hundred million dollars? You might be surprised and sickened to learn that the total is more than $7 billion!

That is $7 billion from a country that has to borrow roughly 40 percent of every dollar it spends. The list that money gets spent on is filled with unconstitutional items. Plus, most of the money is given above and beyond the dues the US is assessed to belong to the UN, such as for UN "peascekeeping."

According to the Constitution, which branch of the government holds the purse strings? Article I, Section 7 points to the House of Representatives (Legislative branch) as being the body where bills for raising revenue must originate. Wait. Which political party is in charge of the House that allows this spending to continue unabated? That's right, the Republicans. This is just another example of pointing out that the problem isn't left vs. right. It's liberty vs. tyranny. Which camp do you think Republican leadership is currently in?

[Diane Amberg]

Mud puddles?

[Ross]

Mud puddles?

That's right, if you were in the know by reading, the CWA has gone that far.

Your imagination surpasses any thing I have ever heard!
Oops, right up there with the Liberal Democrats!

The world does not revolve around Delaware. Sorry !

[flintauqua]

There are many times that the views of this Centrist Moderate line up with those that are further to the right of the political spectrum.  There are even times that my views line up with those that are about as far right as you can get.  This is one of them.

The federal government's frequent abuses of the Clean Water Act over the past two or three presidential administrations are nothing short of uncompensated takings of private property rights, to me even more egregious than the frequent misuse of eminent domain.

This particular case involves 445 acres of fairly level land that is several miles from the Sacramento River and has a USDA FSA use base for wheat, as that is what it has been used for in the past.  Suddenly, with change of ownership, the Corps comes in and says the new owner can't do what the previous owner had done, which is use the land for agricultural production, because it is "in a water of the U. S."  This land may have been within a water body during Noah's biblical flood, but is not within any flood zone, designated or observed.  The Corps further claims that the land is a wetland based on a 1994 delineation, yet a resurvey in 2012 says it is not, making that part of the Corps' case mute.

It boils down to the Corps of Engineers deciding that this new owner can't do what the previous owner did to the same land.  To me that is a taking plain and simple and I hope the Duarte family wins this in court, otherwise many other "new" landowners will be facing the same overzealousness of the Corps.

Charles