Posted on 12/11/2018 7:07:50 PM PST by artichokegrower
It all started when California farmer John Duarte plowed a wheat field in Tehama County, about two hours north of Sacramento, and wound up paying a $1.1 million fine to the federal government for his efforts.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Maybe why Sessions has been asked to hit the road.
Wetlands and wetbacks.
The meek Sessions was absorbed into the DEEP State borg. And he went along MEEKLY.
Prosperity
(until the commies in Sacramento steal that too)
What it means...
More water
Liberals like bookstores. Build a bookstore on the estuary.
“Andrew Wheeler, acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said the new rules will give property owners greater flexibility to manage their lands without having to worry about federal intervention.
“Property owners will be able to stand on their property and determine what is federal water without having to hire outside professionals,” Wheeler said.”
A Washington bureaucrat with common sense. Very rare.
Does this mean that CA will be able once again to capture melting snow water that runs down from the mountains in Spring? People keep yammering about the drought in CA, but CA was always dry and the Spring run-off was a primary source of water for agriculture.
Does this mean that CA will be able once again to capture melting snow water that runs down from the mountains in Spring? People keep yammering about the drought in CA, but CA was always dry and the Spring run-off was a primary source of water for agriculture.
This article is so biased it is pathetic reporting. Reporter doesn’t define “deep ripping” of the land, nor the 18 inch “wetlands rule”/time it has water, or even mention the Rapanos decision which curtailed the EPA/Corps of Engineers massively extended definition of “wet land” or “adjacent body of water” which included fish ponds, swimming pools, and small streams on one’s property.
My first case was a “wetlands” case and it was stupid. Concerned a bridge a property owner/possibly a company, built to get over a large stream/small river on their property.
The Feds made a federal case, if you’ll pardon the expression about how the bridge/ramp blocked “MOCs/MOBs” or something like that (Migratory Organisms or Organic Bodies/Creatures), in this case either frogs or turtles (It was 25 years ago when I had to research this case and I have no notes left from it).
The similar solution would have been to have the company build the bridge so that it was supported by posts which wouldn’t block the water and the migratory creatures. Not a big deal by the feds went ballistic.
Never knew what happened but the goal of the govt was to demolish the bridge/ramp instead of having it rebuilt for water/migration flow.
The case was called Winwood ( Just found its name in a case inventory I discovered in the file room).
I love streams and creeks, etc., esp. for the fish, crayfish and frogs in them, and we are losing too many of both to badly planned/no planning development so I’m with the nature preservationists on trying to save more of them. But I also understand that landowners have rights, but they should be much more responsible for what they do on that land because their fertilizers and animal waste do flow down these water bodies into larger ones and pollute them, plus destroying them cuts off the flow of water that others use or which refill other water bodies and wetlands (which are crucial to keeping the environment clean as well as providing habitats for wildlife/fish and certain species of plants.
Only the Rapanos case stopped the total water-control power grab of the EPA/COE that liberals are so fond of, much like the terrible KELSO decision which destroyed the concept of “eminent domain” when greedy politicians get involved with corrupt realtors/developers.
I thin Kelso was a Connecticut corrupt politicians power grab to help their real estate donor friends take away peoples homes for a shopping center. It is a stain on America’s rights to legally own property and protect one’s home from fraudulent land-grabbing (the Democrats owned this one, big time).
There is no reason why environmental laws cannot be revisited by sane people to see if they are practicable, necessary, and well managed. For too long the EPA, aided by the Corps of Engineers, has used draconian practices against landowners as well as enforcing terribly written laws (which were finally starting to be reformed, in the 1990’s, after 20 years of rampant mismanagement and political shenannigans).
We can have both practical environmental laws and respect for landowers’ rights/water rights at the same time if those involved don’t go off half-cocked on some crusade to save the snail darter fish or lie about “abuses” that do not exist (i.e. the desert tortoise caper, etc).
#8. Ask Rep. Devin Nunez (R-Cal) and his San Jaoquin Valley farmers about how California cut off their farming water and diverted them to LA and the suburbs.
Or, just see “Chinatown”.
They have something on Sessions that he definitely does not want out. I’m thinking it has to with sexual harrassment settlements paid with taxpayers’ dollars.
It could be that he had the dating habits of Moore. Or maybe they swapped little teen girls. All legal but .creepy.
Chinatown doesn’t have anything to do with anything.
In the movie “Chinatown”, the whole issue that Jake was investigating was the diversion of fresh water from certain areas, some being dumped back into the ocean, and some being sent to the suburbs of LA.
The movie was an “allegory” of what did happen in LA due to corrupt officials.
No.
It was a made up story by a drugged out lefty screenwriter, based on a small amount of historical fact from a different time frame altogether.
Chinatown meant to demean the American men who built aqueducts and made things work for capitalism and for the growth of the country and make them look like crooks and bad guys.
Even within that leftist alternate reality that Hollywood has created, it has nothing to do with the environmental-based shackles and obstruction that decades later has been put on California’s agriculture business.
It is fantastic that Trump is addressing it. Winning!
Mr. Magoo, doing the ‘Do-Si-So’ with a Cheerleader? Lol!
If that happened, I’m sure he could never say “I don’t quite recall”.
That would make a good movie title: “Wetlands & Wetbacks”.
Except for the Great California Flood of 1862
I wonder if anyone is planning what to do if this should repeat. Probably not, it will be just like the firestorms we had this year.
Then, the very first case Kavanaugh decided as part of the majority of the Supreme Court was this very EPA case.
The EPA lost.
HA HA HA.
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.