Feds are biggest bullies ever

[mtangelsfan]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/he-plowed-his-field-now-he-faces-a-dollar28m-fine/ar-BBBu6LN?li=BBnb7Kz

More evidence of why giving more power to these a-holes is never a good idea.  They enjoy screwing with regular folks, flexing their muscles and ruining people's lives.

[Jason]

Yet people act like deregulation is a bad thing. This is not how freedom is supposed to work.

[Adam]

Not surprising at all. 

[red321]

Not quite a complete description of what occurred...looks like part of the issue is the dude dumped the fill in protected waterways and wetlands

[mtangelsfan]

two million dollar fine?  Come on.

[Blarg]

Come on, MT, think of the poor fairy shrimp for once.

[red321]

I'm not saying that isn't excessive...just pointing out that there are more issues than just he "plowed" his field.

[Blarg]

I think the Feds should be required to prove any damages took place to their claim of federal waters before they can levey a fine. Just moving sod from one parcel of land to any area of land that has water doesn't necessarily cause damage. 

[mtangelsfan]

I'd like to know how they decide what is a "Federal waterway".  

[Jason]

Just now, mtangelsfan said:

I'd like to know how they decide what is a "Federal waterway".  

I'm pretty sure the EPA is involved in that

[Jason]

https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/guidance-identify-waters-protected-clean-water-act

[red321]

In the west, pretty much every waterway is under federal control, as every ounce of water is spoken for through federal and state compacts. Just because a river or stream runs through your property, you do not own it. The history of the west can be tied to water and water rights.

[Blarg]

My parents have very enviable 3rd water rights on a small stream that passes through their property along with a creek. They even went to court to sue another neighbor for flood irrigation when he didn't have sufficient water rights to support the usage.

The guy thought that because his property was higher up the stream it automatically gave him preference. It took a court order to shut off his pumps and 20 years later his still gives my parents the finger as he drives by their property.

[AngelsLakersFan]

I don't know if it is just this state, but there really is no due process for fines here. Someone decides you broke some law and there is no recourse. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

2 minutes ago, Blarg said:

My parents have very enviable 3rd water rights on a small stream that passes through their property along with a creek. They even went to court to sue another neighbor for flood irrigation when he didn't have sufficient water rights to support the usage.

The guy thought that because his property was higher up the stream it automatically gave him preference. It took a court order to shut off his pumps and 20 years later his still gives my parents the finger as he drives by their property.

Why did they care what he was doing with the water?

[mtangelsfan]

27 minutes ago, Jason said:

https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/guidance-identify-waters-protected-clean-water-act

Reading this they pretty much consider any waterway as something that belongs to them.  As to red's statement.  The water should belong to you if you owned the property before the new regulations.  That or the feds should pay a large fee to the owner for basically stealing his property.

[red321]

4 minutes ago, Blarg said:

My parents have very enviable 3rd water rights on a small stream that passes through their property along with a creek. They even went to court to sue another neighbor for flood irrigation when he didn't have sufficient water rights to support the usage.

The guy thought that because his property was higher up the stream it automatically gave him preference. It took a court order to shut off his pumps and 20 years later his still gives my parents the finger as he drives by their property.

yep...water rights in California, and the west, is serious business.

I finished King of California last year, story of Tule Lake and water rights in the Sierras and the biggest cotton farmer in California. Cadillac Desert is a dated, but fascinating read as well.

[red321]

3 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Reading this they pretty much consider any waterway as something that belongs to them.  As to red's statement.  The water should belong to you if you owned the property before the new regulations.  That or the feds should pay a large fee to the owner for basically stealing his property.

that is not how water works in the west. You may have a river or stream on your property...but you do not own that water...most likely it's owned by someone else hundreds of miles away.

[mtangelsfan]

Somebody owned before the feds decided it belonged to them.

[red321]

that is not how water rights works in the west, or the east for that matter

Just because you own land next to a water source, that doesn't give you the right to do anything you want with it as there are people downstream who are dependent on the water as well. 

 

 

[Jason]

33 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I don't know if it is just this state, but there really is no due process for fines here. Someone decides you broke some law and there is no recourse. 

Due process? What is this thing you speak of?

[gotbeer]

3 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/he-plowed-his-field-now-he-faces-a-dollar28m-fine/ar-BBBu6LN?li=BBnb7Kz

More evidence of why giving more power to these a-holes is never a good idea.  They enjoy screwing with regular folks, flexing their muscles and ruining people's lives.

This is kind of a no win situation.  If the feds react, they are the bad guy.  If the feds don't react and the shrimp go extinct, then they have PETA and WWF and all those environmental groups after them for not doing anything to protect the environment.  One thing that they don't mention in the article, and I'm sure it's conveniently ommitted since it wouldn't serve the purpose of the article, is what kind of runoff the crops are putting into the wetlands.  It doesn't say he's an organic farmer, so my guess is that's probably what the feds are really going after.  The chemical/fertilizer runoff from the crops.

[mtangelsfan]

47 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

This is kind of a no win situation.  If the feds react, they are the bad guy.  If the feds don't react and the shrimp go extinct, then they have PETA and WWF and all those environmental groups after them for not doing anything to protect the environment.  One thing that they don't mention in the article, and I'm sure it's conveniently ommitted since it wouldn't serve the purpose of the article, is what kind of runoff the crops are putting into the wetlands.  It doesn't say he's an organic farmer, so my guess is that's probably what the feds are really going after.  The chemical/fertilizer runoff from the crops.

Perhaps but 3 million dollars will ruin someone.  The small farmer/rancher is going to be non-existent if the feds have their way.  Then the same folks who are pushing the regulations that helped put them out of business will be the ones complaining about large corporations having a stronghold on farming.

[gotbeer]

Just now, mtangelsfan said:

Perhaps but 3 million dollars will ruin someone.  The small farmer/rancher is going to be non-existent if the feds have their way.  Then the same folks who are pushing the regulations that helped put them out of business will be the ones complaining about large corporations having a stronghold on farming.

Yup.  no win situation. 

Although I do find it funny.  And not directed at you Mt, just a general observation.  When Trump says they will reduce the EPA, everyone is up in arms about we need clean water and such.  But when the feds do something about it, then they are up in arms about they are overreaching. 

Kobayashi Maru.

[mtangelsfan]

I don't think everyone is up in arms about it.  Just the loud usual suspects.