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

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,937
17,416
Finger Lakes
✟7,397.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
:oldthumbsup:
Well, he died after serving 18 months, while on parole, and the Court traditionally moots the conviction of dead folk under appeal. Remember the Enron guy?
 
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
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?

Where did I say anything about "permits"? You're now lying about what I said.

Not sure what "court opinion" you're citing (neither of iluvatar's links contain the word "permits"), but the filing did have this to say:

"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."

He was told repeatedly that what he was doing was illegal and continued to do it. He had already dug some ponds prior to May 2014, which he essentially got a slap on the wrist for, but then, after being told unequivocally that he could not continue to dig as he was doing, he did just that, on lands that he did not own.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,023
23,933
Baltimore
✟551,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The one you linked to. Did you read it?

Ah, you mean the court decision that says this:

The “touchstone” of whether a statute is unconstitutionally vague, on the one hand, or the defendant instead had fair notice, on the other hand, “is whether the statute, either standing alone or as construed, made it reasonably clear at the relevant time that the defendant’s conduct was criminal.” Id. at 267. So long as prior to the defendant’s offense there were decisions which gave “reasonable warning that the law [will] be applied in a certain way,” the defendant had fair warning that his conduct was criminal. See Gollehon v. Mahoney, 626 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir. 2010).

Robertson does not challenge the general validity of the criminal provisions of the CWA. His argument relies primarily on the effect of Davis on City of Healdsburg. As UNITED STATES V. ROBERTSON 19 explained above, Davis does not undermine the continuing validity of City of Healdsburg for purposes of jurisdiction. As for the notice issue, the conduct at issue in this case took place between October 2013 and October 2014, well after this court had issued City of Healdsburg and had held that Justice Kennedy’s test controlled CWA jurisdiction, and well before this court’s decision in Davis. See Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (published June 13, 2016); City of Healdsburg, 496 F.3d at 995 (case published in 2007). Robertson was on notice from City of Healdsburg at the time of his excavation activities that wetlands and non-navigable tributaries are subject to CWA jurisdiction “if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.’” Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 780. The jury was instructed in these terms, and convicted Robertson, holding that the elements of his crime where shown beyond a reasonable doubt. Davis—which was not decided until 2016, long after Robertson’s conduct forming the basis for his convictions—does not affect whether Robertson had fair notice at the time of his excavation activities.2

2 Also, Robertson was warned by an EPA agent that he likely needed a permit to authorize his excavations. According to the agent, Robertson was warned that “if he did not have a permit, then he very likely needed a permit.”

ProTip: It's incumbent upon the person doing the work to understand the permitting laws in place before they start doing work. The government doesn't have to come tell you that you need a permit before it's against the law to do un-permitted work.

If you don't believe me, try hiring yourself out as an electrician and let me know how that goes.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Where did I say anything about "permits"? You're now lying about what I said.
So, now I'm a liar?

... and after I just proved a prior claim about my promulgating falsehoods wrong. Do you not know that civil communication is likely to work out more to your advantage?
Not sure what "court opinion" you're citing (neither of iluvatar's links contain the word "permits"), but the filing did have this to say:

"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."

He was told repeatedly that what he was doing was illegal and continued to do it. He had already dug some ponds prior to May 2014, which he essentially got a slap on the wrist for, but then, after being told unequivocally that he could not continue to dig as he was doing, he did just that, on lands that he did not own.
... and did perhaps $1000 of damage to the property.

As a property owner myself, with two parcels of land facing potentially severe restrictions on use due to the onerous EPA regulations, I strongly support what the Trump administration is doing. Over the last few years I've multiple times refused to allow the state on my property to "survey" the watershed. The Obama era regulations were not just onerous, they were ridiculous and punitive.

As soon as I know these ridiculous rules have been lifted I will make permanent changes to the land so that I never have to worry about such nonsense again.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Gigimo
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,023
23,933
Baltimore
✟551,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
... and did perhaps $1000 of damage to the property.

IIRC, the claim was that he did in excess of $1000 of damage, not that he did approximately $1000 in damage. In fact, it's hard to figure how one would come to that low of a number. Just filling in the holes would cost more than that between labor, equipment rental/operation, and transportation.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
IIRC, the claim was that he did in excess of $1000 of damage, not that he did approximately $1000 in damage. In fact, it's hard to figure how one would come to that low of a number. Just filling in the holes would cost more than that between labor, equipment rental/operation, and transportation.
Not the way the US Forest Service operates.

They came in one day on my property, illegally I might add, and cleared about 30 acres of timber in a few hours. They claimed afterward that they were mistakenly on the wrong property. :doh:
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Gigimo
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,812
7,419
PA
✟317,158.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
So, now I'm a liar?

... and after I just proved a prior claim about my promulgating falsehoods wrong. Do you not know that civil communication is likely to work out more to your advantage?
If you read through the posts again, I think you'll find that the only person to make a claim that Robertson had been told to get a permit was iluvatar. Moreover, you have NOT demonstrated that your claim that the ponds were on his property was correct.

Remember, words have meanings.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: whatbogsends
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,023
23,933
Baltimore
✟551,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Not the way the US Forest Service operates.

They came in one day on my property, illegally I might add, and cleared about 30 acres of timber in a few hours. They claimed afterward that they were mistakenly on the wrong property. :doh:

I don't see how that counters my point. That operation would've cost them well over $1000. An employee making $52,000/yr makes $25/hr or $200/day in gross wages. Various taxes and benefits would add another ~25% on top of that. Transportation costs are somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 cents/mile for small passenger vehicles; I have no idea what they are for larger trucks or heavy equipment, but likely quite a bit more. Clearing 30 acres in a day would require a pretty good-sized crew and all the equipment and vehicles to support them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RocksInMyHead
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
I don't see how that counters my point. That operation would've cost them well over $1000. An employee making $52,000/yr makes $25/hr or $200/day in gross wages. Various taxes and benefits would add another ~25% on top of that. Transportation costs are somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 cents/mile for small passenger vehicles; I have no idea what they are for larger trucks or heavy equipment, but likely quite a bit more. Clearing 30 acres in a day would require a pretty good-sized crew and all the equipment and vehicles to support them.
One bull-dozer can clear a lot of land in a short period of time. It's what they do.

My point is that pushing dirt back into a pond where it came from is a minor job for a bull-dozer. That's why the cost of doing so was listed as $1000.

Whatever merits the original case had was so overshadowed by the draconian punishment meted out by the EPA that the Supreme Court overturned the conviction ... even after the death of the defendant.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gigimo
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,023
23,933
Baltimore
✟551,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
My point is that pushing dirt back into a pond where it came from is a minor job for a bull-dozer. That's why the cost of doing so was listed as $1000.

Yes, I'm aware it's a minor job. My point was that, even though its a minor job, it's still at least one man-day of labor for the bulldozer operator, a day of rental/operation for a bulldozer, and transportation (which is going to require a semi).

As you quoted earlier:

causing more than $1,000 worth of damage to the property.
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, I'm aware it's a minor job. My point was that, even though its a minor job, it's still at least one man-day of labor for the bulldozer operator, a day of rental/operation for a bulldozer, and transportation (which is going to require a semi).

As you quoted earlier:
Your assumption is that they would have the equipment brought in simply to fill the ponds. Nope. Filling the ponds would happen at a convenient time when they have the equipment nearby for a major project. They will simply divert it to pond filling for an hour or so. With an operation ten miles away, one could add fifteen minutes to load and move the dozer, 30 minutes total. With ninety minutes of dozer time plus two or three guys the $1000 damage estimate begins to look just a tad inflated. Not exorbitant, but still a little more than the actual cost.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Gigimo
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
So, now I'm a liar?

... and after I just proved a prior claim about my promulgating falsehoods wrong. Do you not know that civil communication is likely to work out more to your advantage?

... and did perhaps $1000 of damage to the property.

As a property owner myself, with two parcels of land facing potentially severe restrictions on use due to the onerous EPA regulations, I strongly support what the Trump administration is doing. Over the last few years I've multiple times refused to allow the state on my property to "survey" the watershed. The Obama era regulations were not just onerous, they were ridiculous and punitive.

As soon as I know these ridiculous rules have been lifted I will make permanent changes to the land so that I never have to worry about such nonsense again.

Firstly, you didn't prove any claim about you making falsehoods wrong. You've been shown that he didn't own some of the land he was digging on; some was owned by the government and some was private property that he was not the owner of. You have yet to admit or retract your error and continue to pretend that your claims have been verified, despite having been shown they were false.

As to calling you a liar, you made the claim that I said something about permits. Instead of trying to show where your claim has merit, you decided to take offense and start talking about civil communication when your posts in this thread have been fraught with falsehoods. Continuing to repeat false claims is the antithesis of civil communication.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
How deep was the waterway? A ditch 1 foot wide and 1 foot deep can deliver lots of cubic feet of water depending on the velocity of the flow.
If the ponds were 4900 sq ft how many cubic ft were they?

Another thing he didn't build those ponds to protect his property. He was in business trucking water to other places, so he was making money off of the water he was stealing.
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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Not the way the US Forest Service operates.

They came in one day on my property, illegally I might add, and cleared about 30 acres of timber in a few hours. They claimed afterward that they were mistakenly on the wrong property. :doh:

So just to clarify, you found the idea of someone coming onto land they didn't own and causing damage to be a bad thing, right?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
As to calling you a liar, you made the claim that I said something about permits.
Again, incorrect. So, by your own logic, you are the one who is lying. Why are you doing that?

I never claimed you said anything about permits. I simply pointed out the EXACT court wording ... which somehow you took enough offense at to hurl the accusation of lying at me. Why?
Continuing to repeat false claims is the antithesis of civil communication.
I couldn't have said it better.

Again though, the question is why? I would suggest you step back a little and focus on exactly what is being said, rather than going for the cheap shot. Perhaps you'll see that your interpretation of events is just as filled with holes as anyone else's.
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,770
17,066
✟1,388,997.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As a property owner myself, with two parcels of land facing potentially severe restrictions on use due to the onerous EPA regulations, I strongly support what the Trump administration is doing. Over the last few years I've multiple times refused to allow the state on my property to "survey" the watershed. The Obama era regulations were not just onerous, they were ridiculous and punitive.

As soon as I know these ridiculous rules have been lifted I will make permanent changes to the land so that I never have to worry about such nonsense again.

Which specific regulation?
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,770
17,066
✟1,388,997.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
Again, incorrect. So, by your own logic, you are the one who is lying. Why are you doing that?

I never claimed you said anything about permits. I simply pointed out the EXACT court wording ... which somehow you took enough offense at to hurl the accusation of lying at me. Why?

What you previously said:

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?

This post clearly says that i'm "driving a false narrative" about "the court opinion clearly states that the EPA did not actually inform Joe that he needed permits". I never mentioned permits until you brought it up, so to claim that i'm pushing a false narrative about needing permits is....a lie.

I couldn't have said it better.

And yet, you still haven't issued any sort of admission, correction, or retraction when you falsely claimed:

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

You made a false claim to support a narrative, then when shown by legal documents that your claim was false, you first try to make it about "what is small", and then tried to call me a liar regarding permits, despite me never having even mentioned them in any of my previous posts.

When you double down on your falsehoods rather than admit that they've been shown to be false is when a falsehood becomes a lie.

Again though, the question is why? I would suggest you step back a little and focus on exactly what is being said, rather than going for the cheap shot. Perhaps you'll see that your interpretation of events is just as filled with holes as anyone else's.

Your posts are fraught with dishonesty.

Correcting you when you posted a false narrative isn't "going for the cheap shot", it's correcting the record. Had you manned up and admitted it at that point, rather than double down an point fingers at me, we would have just continued discussion on the thread. Instead, I will continue to demonstrate that you are being dishonest in this discussion.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RocksInMyHead
Upvote 0