Trump Administration To Undo ‘Oppressive’ Obama-Era Water Regulation

[NightHawkeye]

From the "It's about time", files: Trump Admin To Undo ‘Oppressive’ Obama-Era Water Regulation

“Today, the Trump Administration announced its repeal of President Obama’s oppressive WOTUS regulation. For years, this rule has been used by government agencies to punish farmers and private land owners with out-of-control fines and imprisonment for simply working to protect or better their property. This is another promise kept for our farmers and ranchers as President Trump continues to remove crushing regulations from the American people.”
...
In a 2016 case, 77 year old Navy veteran Joe Robertson was criminally prosecuted and served 18 months in prison because he dug ponds around his Montana home in the hopes of keeping wildfires at bay. The ponds were connected to a foot-wide “river,” so the EPA determined that Robertson had been digging too close to “navigable water” without a permit. []
​

 

[Dave-W]

The ponds were connected to a foot-wide “river,” so the EPA determined that Robertson had been digging too close to “navigable water” without a permit.

I am not sure the EPA has the authority to determine if a waterway is "navigable."

AFAIK, the only agencies to determine that is the Office of Coast Survey (part of NOAA), the Army Corp of Engineers, US Geological Survey and US Coast Guard.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I am not sure the EPA has the authority to determine if a waterway is "navigable."

AFAIK, the only agencies to determine that is the Office of Coast Survey (part of NOAA), the Army Corp of Engineers, US Geological Survey and US Coast Guard.

Tell that to Joe Robertson, who served 18 months in prison ... for digging ponds.

 

[Dave-W]

Tell that to Joe Robertson, who served 18 months in prison ... for digging ponds.

Sounds like a good reason for an appeal.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Sounds like a good reason for an appeal.

He lost the appeal ... and was sent to jail ... for digging small ponds on his property.

 

[Dave-W]

He lost the appeal ..

He needs a better lawyer.

 

[NightHawkeye]

He needs a better lawyer.

The better solution is to do away with the onerous regulations.

Good job Trump.

 

[iluvatar5150]

He lost the appeal ... and was sent to jail ... for digging small ponds on his property.

No, it wasn't his property. It was a combination of federal property and private property that belonged to someone else. Nor were they all small.

Basin Man Convicted of Clean Water Act Violations and Destruction of US Property

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/11/27/16-30178.pdf

Additionally, he had been previously warned that his excavation would require a permit, yet he continued to do the work without getting the appropriate permit.

 

[cow451]

He needs a better lawyer.

Or a Sharpie.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I am not sure the EPA has the authority to determine if a waterway is "navigable."

AFAIK, the only agencies to determine that is the Office of Coast Survey (part of NOAA), the Army Corp of Engineers, US Geological Survey and US Coast Guard.

Good thing it was the Army Corps of Engineers that established that fact in the trial then, not the EPA.

 

[NightHawkeye]

No, it wasn't his property. It was a combination of federal property and private property that belonged to someone else. Nor were they all small.

Basin Man Convicted of Clean Water Act Violations and Destruction of US Property

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/11/27/16-30178.pdf

Additionally, he had been previously warned that his excavation would require a permit, yet he continued to do the work without getting the appropriate permit.

Regardless, it appears that he eventually won the case on appeal to the Supreme Court.

Montana man unjustly convicted of violating Clean Water Act

The 77-year-old Navy veteran was sentenced to 18 months in prison and fined $130,000, a conviction upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Joe asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn his conviction because nobody should have to face prison for incorrectly guessing what the government thinks is navigable. The Supreme Court granted Joe’s petition, vacated the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and on subsequent consideration, the Ninth Circuit threw out his unconstitutional conviction and reversed the impoverishing fine.
​

 

[whatbogsends]

No, it wasn't his property. It was a combination of federal property and private property that belonged to someone else. Nor were they all small.

Basin Man Convicted of Clean Water Act Violations and Destruction of US Property

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/11/27/16-30178.pdf

Additionally, he had been previously warned that his excavation would require a permit, yet he continued to do the work without getting the appropriate permit.

Why let facts get in the way of a good narrative?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Why let facts get in the way of a good narrative?

It's actually worse than being presented.

Joe died after being sent to jail. The win on appeal was the result of continued efforts by his wife to clear his name posthumously.

 

[whatbogsends]

It's actually worse than being presented.

Joe died after being sent to jail. The win on appeal was the result of continued efforts by his wife to clear his name posthumously.

It doesn't change the fact that:

He lost the appeal ... and was sent to jail ... for digging small ponds on his property.

is a falsehood that you put forth to promote the narrative.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's actually worse than being presented.

Joe died after being sent to jail. The win on appeal was the result of continued efforts by his wife to clear his name posthumously.

I'm not a lawyer, but the way I read the current status is that they sent it back to the 9th circuit to determine whether or not the issue is moot now that he's dead. I don't know that I'd call that a "win" yet.

 

[NightHawkeye]

It doesn't change the fact that:

is a falsehood that you put forth to promote the narrative.

Incorrect. From my previous link:

Joe and his wife ran a fire fighting support truck business, and he knew that protecting his property depended on a better water supply. So in 2013 and 2014 he dug some small ponds in and around the channel, so that multiple water trucks could fill up.
​

Bear in mind that the so-called channel of water here is described as 1-foot wide ... so the ponds can't have been very big.

Why are you so focused on the matter of pond size anyway? It's not greatly relevant to the story. Even if they'd been stock ponds, it wouldn't change the idiocy of EPA designating a small stream as a "navigable waterway".

 

[whatbogsends]

Incorrect. From my previous link:

Joe and his wife ran a fire fighting support truck business, and he knew that protecting his property depended on a better water supply. So in 2013 and 2014 he dug some small ponds in and around the channel, so that multiple water trucks could fill up.
​

Bear in mind that the so-called channel of water here is described as 1-foot wide ... so the ponds can't have been very big.

Why are you so focused on the matter of pond size anyway? It's not greatly relevant to the story. Even if they'd been stock ponds, it wouldn't change the idiocy of EPA designating a small stream as a "navigable waterway".

The primary claim that you're factually incorrect about is where the ponds were dug.

From the actual Department of Justice filing that iluvatar linked in post#8:

" Additional investigation revealed that Robertson continued to construct ponds on the USFS property after May of 2014, despite being told repeatedly that he had no legal right to do so.
...
The defendant’s illegal activity took place not only on public land but also on private property he didn’t own. "

Some of what he dug was on United States Forest Service (USFS) property, and some of his ponds were dug on private property not his own. You are making a false claim when you say "and was sent to jail ... for digging small ponds on his property."

As for the size, yes, your article makes that claim, and "small" is a subjective claim. Ponds are, by definition, fairly small. 70' x 70' (4900 sq. ft.) isn't particularly small.

Again from the actual Department of Justice filing:

"The work consisted of nine ponds of varying sizes, including some as large as approximately 4900 square feet that were placed directly in the stream and wetlands area."

 

[NightHawkeye]

The primary claim that you're factually incorrect about is where the ponds were dug.

From the actual Department of Justice filing that iluvatar linked in post#8:

" Additional investigation revealed that Robertson continued to construct ponds on the USFS property after May of 2014, despite being told repeatedly that he had no legal right to do so.
...
The defendant’s illegal activity took place not only on public land but also on private property he didn’t own. "

Some of what he dug was on United States Forest Service (USFS) property, and some of his ponds were dug on private property not his own. You are making a false claim when you say "and was sent to jail ... for digging small ponds on his property."

As for the size, yes, your article makes that claim, and "small" is a subjective claim. Ponds are, by definition, fairly small. 70' x 70' (4900 sq. ft.) isn't particularly small.

Again from the actual Department of Justice filing:

"The work consisted of nine ponds of varying sizes, including some as large as approximately 4900 square feet that were placed directly in the stream and wetlands area."

Ok.

Since we're picking nits here ... the court opinion clearly states that the EPA did not actually inform Joe that he needed permits. Instead, this is what the opinion says:

... his activities “very likely” required permits.​

That's a major difference from what you and Iluvatar have been claiming, wouldn't you agree? So, using your logic, is it fair to say that you've been driving a false narrative?

Even though the EPA had not provided proper guidance they extracted a severe penalty.

Further, here's what the Forest Service claimed in damage, according to the court:

... causing more than $1,000 worth of damage to the property.
​

Now, my question to you is, does Joe's prosecution sound like justice to you?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Ok.

Since we're picking nits here ... the court opinion clearly states that the EPA did not actually inform Joe that he needed permits. Instead, this is what the opinion says:

his activities “very likely” required permits.​

That's a major difference from what you and Iluvatar have been claiming, wouldn't you agree? So, using your logic, why have you been making false claims ... other than to support a narrative?

Even though the EPA had not provided proper guidance they extracted a severe penalty.

Which court opinion?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Which court opinion?

The one you linked to. Did you read it?