EPA Goes After Low-Income Farmers In Land Grab

So many passionately delivered opinions and yet I wonder how much of you actually read the linked document?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So, essentially the EPA, and the Obama administration are slowly, but surely trying to take control of all land, including private land, as long as
there is a runoff running through it. Whether or not it is a permanent runoff.

This is nothing but State control of all land, including private land.

Let's break down this claim and see why it's utter ridiculous on its face. You're alleging that two parties are "surely trying to take control of all the land including private land, as long as there is a runoff running through it. Whether or not it is a permanent runoff. Those two parties are the EPA and the Obama Administration.

1. Setting aside the fact that the Obama and his administration are "short timers" at this point and this claim seems a little suspect on its face, what evidence is put forth that the alleged overreach is part of a pattern of similar cases occurring since Obama has been in office?

The article you linked makes this vague reference:

If the highest court in the land agrees to hear the appeal, they’ll surely do so with more than a little frustration, as environmental agencies have lost three times in similar Supreme Court cases since 2001.

Super. How similar are these three cases? What agencies were involved? When were the original suits filed? When did the actions that were the subject of the suits take place? Where any of the cases heard during the Obama administration?

So the article is a bust for substantiating this, but what about the linked brief? Nope. No other cases occurring during the present administration are referenced at all. There are three cases cited though:

Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp.,513 U.S. 30 (1994)
FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742 (1982)
Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61 (1981)

So right off the bat, you've failed miserably to establish that there is a pattern indicative of an agenda to "take control of all the land..."

I'll continue in the next post

a reply to: theantediluvian

Wow...So you did not even read the information provided.. I gave in the op a link, and several excerpts to a case from 2014 which states that the EPA under the Obama administration is trying to shut down most farmers in those states...

www.freshlawblog.com...

Yet you ignored the information provided and set off to try to defame me?...

I am not the subject of this thread... Discuss the information provided...

and here you go...

The Obama Administration released a national Clean Water Framework on April 27, 2011, that affirms its comprehensive commitment to protecting the health of America's waters. The framework recognizes the importance of clean water and healthy watersheds to our economy, environment and communities, and emphasizes the importance of partnerships and coordination with states, local communities, stakeholders, and the public to protect public health and water quality, and promote the nation’s energy and economic security.
...

www.whitehouse.gov...

Obama Administration Affirms Comprehensive Commitment to Clean Water

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503

...
For nearly 40 years, the Clean Water Act, along with other important Federal measures, has been a cornerstone of our effort to ensure that Americans have clean and healthy waters. The Administration’s framework outlines a series of actions underway and planned across Federal agencies to ensure the integrity of the waters Americans rely on every day for drinking, swimming, and fishing, and that support farming, recreation, tourism and economic growth. It includes draft Federal guidance to clarify which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act nationwide; innovative partnerships and programs to improve water quality and water efficiency; and initiatives to revitalize communities and economies by restoring rivers and critical watersheds.
...

www.whitehouse.gov...

Do you understand what "Draft federal guidelines" means?

ETA: you do understand under the American system that guidelines and frameworks are not laws. So Obama has done nothing but lay out what he would like to see.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
Do you understand what "Draft federal guidelines" means?

ETA: you do understand under the American system that guidelines and frameworks are not laws. So Obama has done nothing but lay out what he would like to see.

Do you understand what it means "to clarify which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act nationwide"?

The Obama administration wants to include all, even if they are not permanent, waterway runoffs.

President Obama asserts power over small waterways

By Timothy Cama - 05/27/15 10:05 AM EDT

The Obama administration on Wednesday asserted its authority over the nation'streams, wetlands and other smaller waterways, moving forward with one of the most controversial environmental regulations in recent years.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers said they are making final their proposed waters of the United States rule, which Republicans and many businesses have long panned as a massive federal overreach that would put the EPA in charge of ditches, puddles and wet areas.

ADVERTISEMENT
“We’re finalizing a clean water rule to protect the streams and the wetlands that one in three Americans rely on for drinking water. And we’re doing that without creating any new permitting requirements and maintaining all previous exemptions and exclusions,” EPA head Gina McCarthy told reporters Wednesday.

McCarthy and other Obama officials sought to emphasize that the rule is about increasing clarity for businesses and helping make it easier to determine which waterways are subject to the pollution rules of the Clean Water Act.

“This rule is about clarification, and in fact, we’re adding exclusions for features like artificial lakes and ponds, water-filled depressions from constructions and grass swales,” she said

“This rule will make it easier to identify protected waters and will make those protections consistent with the law as well as the latest peer-reviewed science. This rule is based on science,” she continued.

With the Wednesday action, the Obama administration is doubling down on an effort that has sustained repeated attacks from congressional Republicans hoping to overturn the regulations.

In doing so, the administration is fulfilling what it sees as a responsibility to protect the wetlands, headwaters and small water bodies that can carry pollution to the larger waterways, like bays and rivers, that are more clearly protected by the Clean Water Act. Officials said the rule was made necessary by a pair of Supreme Court decisions in the last decade that called into question Clean Water Act protections for some small tributaries, streams and wetlands that were previously covered.

Brian Deese, Obama’s top environmental adviser, said the rule “is an important win for public health and for our economy,” and sought to paint its opponents as fighting clean water.

“The only people with reason to oppose the rule are polluters who want to threaten our clean water,” he said.

McCarthy said the regulation would result in a modest increase in the federal government’s jurisdiction, amounting to less than a 3 percent growth.

Responding to criticisms from farmers, ranchers, developers, manufacturers and others, she took time to list what is not covered by the waters of the United States rule.

“It does not interfere with private property rights or address land use,” she said. “It does not regulate any ditches unless they function as tributaries. It does not apply to groundwater or shallow subsurface water, copper tile drains or change policy on irrigation or water transfer.”
...

thehill.com...

Meanwhile the Obama administration claims that this clarification would not interfere with private property rights, that is not what the EPA, under Obama mandate, is doing as can be seen in the recent case included in this thread.

a reply to: theantediluvian

and BTW...

Democrats buck Obama on water rule


By Timothy Cama - 05/28/15 10:24 AM EDT

Dozens of congressional Democrats are joining Republicans to back legislation blocking the Obama administration’s new rule to redefine its jurisdiction over the nation’s waterways.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers made the regulation final Wednesday in an attempt to clarify that small streams, wetlands, headwaters and tributaries are covered by the Clean Water Act and the rules that go along with it.

Opponents labeled the rule as a massive “power grab” by the Obama administration that could give federal officials authority over every creek and puddle.

Three moderate Democrats in the Senate and 24 in the House have joined the GOP in opposition, but leave them far from the two-thirds majorities they would need for a veto-proof vote to overturn the rule.
...

thehill.com...

originally posted by: aethertek
So your argument is farmers should be allowed to let leach as much toxic runoff from their farms into the local waterways as they wish without any regulation?

Algal Blooms and Dead Zones
www.cbf.org...

K~

No, that is not their argument. Now that I have dismantled your false premise, what else do you have?

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: greencmp
I just dumped out my birdbath.

Wait til the EPA bans rain water harvesting.

It's coming.

Nah, they'll just tax it.

EDIT: greencmp beat me to it

a reply to: Teikiatsu

That is exactly what it means, how do you understand any other way?

For those who want to try to claim this case from 2014 does not exist, here is another link showing the case I posted in the op and which shows the EPA under the Obama administration wants to shut down most small farms in large areas in the U.S.

(refer to the excerpts provided in the op which can also be found in the following link)
www.fb.org...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

...continued from above

Who are the plaintiffs/appellants in this case?

Appellants American Farm Bureau Federation; Pennsylvania Farm Bureau; Fertilizer Institute; U.S. Poultry & Egg Association; National Pork Producers Council; National Corn Growers Association; and National Association of Home Builders consent to the filing.

Now the brief was actually filed by counsel for the following counties as amici curiae:

CAMBRIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA; CLEARFIELD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA; LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA; PERRY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA; TIOGA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA; HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA; PENDLETON COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA; AND NEW CASTLE COUNTY, DELAWARE

Amici curiae refers to an individual or group that is not a party in the case but is submitting information to the court for consideration in the matter. This brief also list several intervenors. Those are parties who join existing litigation:

Intevenors [sic] Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future; Defenders of Wildlife; Jefferson County Public Service District; Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy; and National Wildlife Federation; Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies, Inc.; Maryland Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies; National Association of Clean Water Agencies; and Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association

You can see from the opinion filed July 6, 2015 by the US Court of Appeals Third Circuit judges that all of those intervenors joined the defense.

In short, a bunch of industry associations sued the EPA and it looks like the counties didn't become parties to the case but did provide information "for the reversal" in the appeal that was denied. Meanwhile, three state associations of municipal water authorities joined the case ON THE SIDE OF THE EPA along with the Jefferson County Public Service District and a few conservation groups.

Don't you find that to be interesting? Have you read the opinion of the court? I'm guessing not. It's interesting that the only plaintiffs/appellants in the case are industry groups and that associations that represent municipal water authorities joined as apellees.

This is an important point. So what are these industry associations alleging EXACTLY?

For what reason do Republicans want to destroy the environment, only for profit of course. Asshats.

This whole presidential thing has come down to me in my old age, as the republicans only care about profits, and the democrats care about people, vote your heart. Some of you are going to be surprised when you face the guy up top.

a reply to: theantediluvian

These are small farms...they are not "industry associations"... Now you try to attack the small farmers who don't want their farms to be shut down?...

...
Pendleton County, West Virginia is 698 square miles with a population of 7,695. All of Pendleton County drains into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The county has approximately 540 family-owned farms for a combined total acreage of 170,000 acres or 38.2% of the county land area. It is anticipated that a significant amount of Pendleton County farmland will have to be removed from production due to itsproximity to waterways and the resulting impacts of the Bay TMDL on local land use.
...

www.freshlawblog.com...

(the above excerpt is only showing one of the areas the EPA wants many farmers to shut down their farms. In some of these areas they want to shut down most family owned farms)

Refer to the information provided in the case instead of trying to claim these farmers are "industry associations"...

These are family owned farms, and not industrial farms...

You try to use another false argument, and try to defame these small farmers to try to dismiss the argument...

WOW...

Your source is crap, bring us a a better one if you can.

tenthamendmentcenter.com...

Here in Missouri we've been seeing the feds take over flooded lands after the winter runoff. And wouldn't you know it, the issue can be traced back to the Army Corp of Engineers mismanaging the post-winter floods. Wacky.

hartzler.house.gov...

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
a reply to: Teikiatsu

That is exactly what it means, how do you understand any other way?

Yes, I understand reality. While I do not say that the Feds are taking over all private property, it can be stated that federal acquisition of private lands is on the increase.

Please tell us, why does the federal government need to buy excess land?

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
Your source is crap, bring us a a better one if you can.

Your debating skills need work. Please try again. Or should we just say 'your posts are crap, neener neener'?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
...
Please tell us, why does the federal government need to buy excess land?

The question should be, why does the government under the Obama administration wants to shut down most small farmlands and have them under their control?

All these people trying to protect the Obama administration and the EPA's decision in this matter are control freaks who want government owning and controlling everything, and want to deny Americans the right to own land for the good of all of course which is a BS excuse...

The goal shouldn't be to try to shut down most small farms owned by thousands of farmers and their families and to deny Americans the right to own land...

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
Your source is crap, bring us a a better one if you can.

Already anticipated such an obvious false remark... In one of my responses I also gave this link to the case...

www.fb.org...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

...continued

So what was the EXACT nature of this overreach? (from brief):

EPA intruded on this local authority by setting annual and daily pollutant allocations for both point sources and nonpoint sources (see JA1400-33; JA1596, JA1766); by demanding assurances from states by way of their WIPs, objecting to those that EPA deemed to be deficient and threatening federal “backstops” in situations where states failed to abide by EPA’s objections (see JA565, JA572-74); and demanding that all pollution control measures necessary to achieve EPA’s allocations must be in place by 2025 (see JA1106).

Specifically, that the EPA only had the authority to set "total loads" :

Amici incorporate by reference the CWA framework presented by PlaintiffsAppellants American Farm Bureau Federation et al. As this framework makes clear, EPA’s TMDL authority is limited. In the case of the Bay TMDL, EPA exceeded this authority. Instead of simply setting the “total load” as provided in Section 303(d)(1)(C) of the CWA, EPA usurped the authority of state and local governments by allocating and assigning pollutant loads to specific source sectors and individual sources throughout the watershed

At this point it's necessary to explain the terminology. Point source would be something like a discharge pipe from a water treatment facility or factory which it is agreed by everyone, the federal and state governments share joint authority over. Nonpoint sources are things like runoff from farms which counsel maintains are under the exclusive authority of the state and local agencies.

So the claim is that because some of the point sources in the plan were nonpoint sources, the EPA didn't have the right to draw up the plan nor did it have any right to set a time frame or threaten "backstops" (I don't know what this refers to exactly). However, the EPA argued that:

EPA argues that the TMDL allocations were based on the draft Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP)1 put forth by each state.

To which the industry associations counter:

However, the record shows that the state’ draft plans were developed under unreasonably short time frames and with incomplete information.

Yet it's not the states that allegedly didn't have complete information and were developing under an "unreasonably short time frame" that seem to have taken issue with the EPA but rather the INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS.

So tell me. How is this a "land grab" in the first place? The land isn't being "grabbed" at all. The claim is actually that the EPA overstepped its boundaries in drawing up a plan that included goals for nonpoint sources instead of just setting "a total load" and letting the state and local authorities decide what to do from there. If you want to get the nitty gritty, read the opinion I linked. It basically boils down to this:

We deal primarily with one provision of this complex statute, which calls for the establishment of a “total maximum
daily load” of pollution for certain waters. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(1)(C).2 The parties dispute what those words mean. They are not defined in the Act, but the EPA has interpreted them to require publication of a comprehensive framework for pollution reduction in a given body of water. When we discuss this comprehensive document, we refer to it by the acronym “TMDL”; by contrast, when we analyze the statutory text, we refer to the words “total maximum daily load.”

The EPA says the TMDL is a comprehensive plan, the industry associations say it means a single number.

So despite your outlandish claims about "total control" and the "Obama administration," this is really about whether or not the CWA intended to give federal agencies the power to micromanage the state and local agencies or not.

The other thing you and this hack piece from "thefederalist.org" fail to account for is that people rely on the Chesapeake Bay for livelihood and that what was once fertile fishing ground has been destroyed by pollution. They even made a stupid horror move about it called The Bay.

So while there's all this feigned concern for the "low income farmers" there's absolutely no concern for the rest of the people who live and work on and around the bay that EPA and these states have been working to clean up for DECADES.

Absolutely nothing about your OP is anything but disingenuous, hyped up nonsense. Congratulations.