a looong time ago there was a congressman here that went by "Cadillac Smith" because of the BIG sign on top of the Caddy that said "Paid for by NOT GROWING CORN" and he fought against paying not to grow
Posted on 04/01/2021 11:05:13 AM PDT by tbw2
For nearly a decade, California farmer Jack LaPant was the target of an investigation and prosecution by the United States Army, who alleged that LaPant violated the Clean Water Act by growing a wheat crop to feed his cattle. Earlier this year, LaPant was able to settle the case to get the Army out of his hair, but the settlement required him to give the Army more than $1 million in money and land value. This, despite the fact that the government never proved a single allegation in court.
(Excerpt) Read more at fee.org ...
American Farmers Shouldn’t Need Permission from the US Army to Grow Crops
Harming farmers’ ability to produce food surplus harms all of us.
https://fee.org/articles/american-farmers-shouldn-t-need-permission-from-the-us-army-to-grow-crops/
Sounds like the old wheat crop case the Supremes decided (awfully) decades ago.
“For nearly a decade”. Let me guess—the Obama years. Communists always go after the farmers, being the basis of a free market system.
Another chapter in R.M. Nixon’s War on Natural Resource Harvesters.
The infamous bad decision that eliminated any pretense of limits on federal power forevermore.
I can’t figure out how the Army has jurisdiction? Precedent lets EPA and Commerce Dept and others regulate such (wrongly, IMO, but that’s how the Court has ruled), but what does the US Army have to do with it?
Army Corps of Engineers?
It is the Corp of Engineers. They ruin everything they touch. They ruined the Kissimmee River and messed up the everglades.
More than willing to shoot us "normals".
It took me doing my own research to find out what the heck this case is really all about.
A. It’s about the Army Corps of Engineers.
B. It’s about the clean water act and authority it gave the Army Corps of Engineers.
C. It’s about “wet lands” (any low lying land with water on it) and its about the clean water act’s flaw in not separating “wet lands” into what may have been historically “forever” wet lands and wet lands that may come and go under varying conditions, nor does the law acknowledge “wet lands” that a landowner, and not nature, created. ALL wet lands of any kind formed in any manner are supposedly not allowed to be altered by private parties (even when on your own land) under the clean water act, except by permission of the Army Corps of Engineers.
D. MOST IMPORTANTLY Congress, at a time when it had a rational moment, EXEMPTED farms, like Jack LaPlant’s from Army Corps of Engineers interference concerning “wetlands” ON THEIR FARMS.
F. And the judges have refused to acknowledge the Army Corps of Engineers has, under law, no standing on the cases it has been bringing against farmers regarding “wet lands” on their farms.
Fascist bureaucrats and activist judges.
a looong time ago there was a congressman here that went by "Cadillac Smith" because of the BIG sign on top of the Caddy that said "Paid for by NOT GROWING CORN" and he fought against paying not to grow
~30 years ago I had a developer client who knew of a case where another developer had roughed in a large office/light industrial park. As part of that, there was curb and gutter put in for the roads. Well, that retained enough water that some govt enviro type tried to declare it a wetland.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.