Farmer facing massive fines for … plowing his own field

a reply to: ketsuko


He is screwed.

a reply to: Tardacus

In other words, get the idea out of your head that he was twisting his Snidely Whiplash mustaches as he brazenly drove over the mudholes, intending to plow them down.

What happened is that he did his best to discover where they were and drive (and plow) around them, but the piece of equipment he used accidentally pushed plowed dirt sideways into the mudholes he was attempting to avoid which is what the original source article also says.

a reply to: ketsuko

Mmmm no you should probably read it again.

That part where the farmer "conceded that some of the wetlands were plowed" pretty much directly shoots down your comment that he didn't brazenly drive over mudholes intending to plow them. He sort of admits to brazenly driving over them and plowing them, not driving near them and pushing a teeny tiny bit of dirt into them.

Happy to agree that it probably wasn't part of some dastardly plan, sure. But you're cherry picking on something the guy has admitted to doing.

Francois conceded that some of the wetlands were plowed but not significantly damaged. He said the ground was plowed to a depth of 4 to 7 inches.

How you can get that it was just an accident and he pushed some dirt into the mudholes out of him saying he plowed the mudholes with a blade that penetrated 4 to 7 inches into the soil is pretty amazing.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Not necessarily.

You can say you did a thing without meaning to have done it.

You are coming from the position that he plowed them under and always intended to no matter what. If he always intended to, why go to all the trouble to map out where they were? It's entirely possible that in attempting to maximize the amount of land he could plant, he cut it closer than he meant and disturbed some of the mudholes.

a reply to: ketsuko

I didn't say word one about him intending to do it, and in fact agreed with you that it probably wasn't some dastardly plan on his part to do it.

Doesn't change the fact that he did it, and not in the manner you're attempting to portray it, and he's admitted to doing it.

Take it from someone that has plowed a few fields in my day, plowing will not stop the rain or make it stop puddling in low areas.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ketsuko

I didn't say word one about him intending to do it, and in fact agreed with you that it probably wasn't some dastardly plan on his part to do it.

Doesn't change the fact that he did it, and not in the manner you're attempting to portray it, and he's admitted to doing it.

Too bad the EPA isn't like the FBI. Lack of intent would matter.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Makes one wonder....

Who'll stop the rain?

I think the issue here is what constitutes a wetland and whether said wetland is well classified in his property deed.

If the farmer had protected areas on his property that he plowed then unfortunately for him, he is in deep trouble. Although 2.8 million is way over the top.

Areas like wetlands are critical for the environment. They often serve to replenish subterranean aquifers. So by disturbing them you are either stopping the water from getting through, or even worse, allowing all sorts of nastiness to get into the water we all drink.

The wheat itself is pretty harmless. But the fertilizer and sprays he would have used to grow a healthy crop would directly affect the wetland. So people will now have nitrates and traces of sprays like roundup in their water.

a reply to: ketsuko

Just when you thought you were free.

I believe the EPA are drunk on to much power. In fact, I am all for removing this corrupt branch of our government, because it does not serve, the people interests, no sir, it was set up to protect the giant pollutant corporations, such as our oil companies among many other things. Anyone researching the BP oil spill in the gulf of mexico can see how the EPA handled that situation.

But finding this poor guy over 2 mil is not only excessive, but down right evil. Sounds like we are living in North Korea.

If we want to save the vernal fairy shrimp, we need to kill spadefoot toads (which are not threatened). If you do mot understand why, read up on the vernal fairy shrimp.

If we want to riase money for the federal government, keep fining farmers millions of dollars.

Because the property has numerous swales and wetlands, Duarte hired a consulting firm to map out areas on the property that were not to be plowed because they were part of the drainage for Coyote and Oat creeks and were considered “waters of the United States.”

Francois conceded that some of the wetlands were plowed but not significantly damaged. He said the ground was plowed to a depth of 4 to 7 inches.

Bold is mine. So he DID plow some of those wetlands, hmm.

“Even under the farming exemption, a discharge of dredged or fill material incidental to the farming activities that impairs the flow of the waters of the United States still requires a permit because it changes the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters,” the U.S. attorney said in court filings.

The creeks also flow into the Sacramento River, home to endangered chinook salmon.

Here we go, it's not like what you state. He plowed some of the wetlands, thinking he had the right too (which farmers do as they aren't beholden to the Clean Water act) but he didn't know that the wetlands he plowed was home to an endangered species of shrimp AND feed the creek for another endangered species, the chinook salmon.

That's why he got hit and he brought up a counter suit. Let the court handle this and let's see what happens.

The irony is despite the complaints by the farmer, farming is heavily subsidized by the government. In fact, it is one of the first industries to get subsidization.

a reply to: ketsuko

Redundant, useless agency which only serves to stymie growth and obstruct citizens and businesses from being in any way productive. I'd shed no tears if they were entirely defunded.

a reply to: ketsuko

Ridiculous. I don't have problems with the EPA going after polluters but this is nothing but a way for the government to generate income and take control over private property. Maybe the EPA should pay this farmer the cost of a loss crop every year to keep him from planting his crops if this area is so important! It's his property, he paid for it!

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: ketsuko

Just when you thought you were free.

I believe the EPA are drunk on to much power. In fact, I am all for removing this corrupt branch of our government, because it does not serve, the people interests, no sir, it was set up to protect the giant pollutant corporations, such as our oil companies among many other things. Anyone researching the BP oil spill in the gulf of mexico can see how the EPA handled that situation.

But finding this poor guy over 2 mil is not only excessive, but down right evil. Sounds like we are living in North Korea.

The USDA spends more on subsidies for farmers in one year than North Korea's entire economy makes in a single year.

But yea man, totally like North Korea.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: evc1shop

Yes, that is the Beana Lisa.

Always wondered what she'd look like with eyebrows lol

.. as to the op, I despise things like this. He owns the land. Spurious government action is becoming the norm...

originally posted by: Shamrock6
In the USA Today article the farmer admits to having plowed wetlands that he knew weren't supposed to be plowed so I mean....

The fine seems pretty over the top, yea. But the guy as much as admits to plowing where he knew he wasn't supposed to.

Can't wait till some government entity dictates where we can and cannot breathe.

Fined 250 million for exhaling in a protected area. It will be great.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Bluntone22

Makes one wonder....

Who'll stop the rain?

No one, I hear of people being fined for catching it for use, because, it's stealing water from where it was supposed to go.

Those mountains sure have a lot to answer for...

It wasn't like he owned the land and the EPA all of the sudden told him he couldn't plow the ground there any more.

Actual Source
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.

Duarte planned to grow wheat there, according to Francois and court documents.

Because the property has numerous swales and wetlands, Duarte hired a consulting firm to map out areas on the property that were not to be plowed because they were part of the drainage for Coyote and Oat creeks and were considered “waters of the United States.”

Francois conceded that some of the wetlands were plowed but not significantly damaged. He said the ground was plowed to a depth of 4 to 7 inches.

It seems he should have hired consultants prior to buying it to see if trying to grow crops there would be problematic.

The US Attorney is contending he didn't plow the land, instead he "ripped" it. Apparently three inches is the difference between plowing your field legally and a 3 million dollar fine. Which I do believe is incredibly excessive.

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.

There is a ridiculous amount of information left out of the source in the OP.

I never cease to be amazed at stories like this.

I own 50 acres and care for 90. It is as pristine as it was 100 years ago, except for the small area that contains two houses and a dozen or so outbuildings. We have several wet-weather streams that criss cross the property, and about 10 acres in hay.

The thing is, I still use the property. I cut trees for firewood and building poles/fence posts. We used to dump garbage (at least what was unburnable) in a dump located in the mountain, until garbage pickup became available here. I sometimes hunt the deer that cross the property. But all of those things are done with forethought to what effect it will have on the place.

Now here comes the EPA. Are my wet-weather creeks wetlands? Apparently they could be. Is that old dump site illegal? Not then but it might be today. Do I care? NO!

Our country is founded on the principle of the ability of the people to own property. I have a deed that states this is my property for my use as I see fit. It's mine. If I want to build something, I ask permission from no one; I grab some wood and nails and start building. If I want to stock my freezer with venison, I grab a gun and take a walk into the mountain. If I see a dangerous animal, I kill it. Other people ask some 'authority' for permission before they can do these things with their own property.

This is the reason the EPA needs to go away. It was a good idea when it was started... keep unscrupulous people from polluting the environment for others. But how was this farmer polluting? He was growing crops, for crying out loud! Every person trying to make excuses for the EPA depends on farmers growing crops. The EPA is striving desperately to bring on a famine in this country, and for that reason I wish it were disbanded completely.

In the meantime, the EPA is not welcome on my property, just like the local game warden is not welcome here. They enter my property as trespassers and will be treated as such. If there's anything I will defend more vociferously than my right to own a gun, it is my right to use my property as I see fit.

I know a lot will disagree with me. That's fine. If you want someone telling you what you can and can't do every moment, go for it. But as for me... I will never accept that as long as I breathe.

TheRedneck