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

[NightHawkeye]

Your posts are fraught with dishonesty.

If that were really true, you'd be able to succinctly point out the lies. Instead, you post multiple paragraphs spinning a narrative interpreting what I said.

Again, I merely provided EXACT wording from the court opinion. I'd recommend simply dealing with the words of the opinion, instead of taking offense and internalizing everything in the worst possible way. I'm not your worst nightmare, yet.

 

[NightHawkeye]

...you stated:
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.

...which EPA regulation specifically might pertains to your parcels?

I just gave it to you. WOTUS.

 

[whatbogsends]

If that were really true, you'd be able to succinctly point out the lies. Instead, you post multiple paragraphs spinning a narrative interpreting what I said.

Your lies aren't lies because they're lengthy? No interpretation necessary, just showing the conversation in full.

Again, I merely provided EXACT wording from the court opinion. I'd recommend simply dealing with the words of the opinion, instead of taking offense and internalizing everything in the worst possible way. I'm not your worst nightmare, yet.

No, you merely made the false claim that he was sent to jail for digging small ponds on his own property.

The truth is, he went to jail because he:
a) dug ponds previously, was given a warning, and told explicitly he couldn't do what he was doing
and
b) in addition to digging on his own property, dug ponds on both private property that wasn't his as well as public property.

You misrepresented the facts of the case to create a narrative, and when called out, attempted to point a finger at me for something i never said.

 

[NightHawkeye]

No, you merely made the false claim that he was sent to jail for digging small ponds on his own property.

Noting that my statement was entirely correct. 100%.

The fact that he also dug on neighboring property was not necessarily a factor in his prosecution.

You'd need to understand that he was prosecuted for EPA violations ... not trespassing or damaging other property. Why do you repeatedly insist on focusing on the matter of trespassing. Property damage was listed as a mere $1000. Restitution would have been on that order. Instead, Robertson was fined over $160,000 and spent 18 months in prison.

Again, he was prosecuted for EPA violations. EPA violations.

The truth is, he went to jail because he:
a) dug ponds previously, was given a warning, and told explicitly he couldn't do what he was doing
and

Not entirely true.

He was told that he "likely" needed "permits" to do what he was doing.

b) in addition to digging on his own property, dug ponds on both private property that wasn't his as well as public property.

You misrepresented the facts of the case to create a narrative, and when called out, attempted to point a finger at me for something i never said.

Incorrect. As previously pointed out, I provided EXACT wording from the court opinion. Again, I recommend you respond to that.

 

[whatbogsends]

Noting that my statement was entirely correct. 100%.

The fact that he also dug on neighboring property was not necessarily a factor in his prosecution.

You'd need to understand that he was prosecuted for EPA violations ... not trespassing or damaging other property. Why do you repeatedly insist on focusing on the matter of trespassing. Property damage was listed as a mere $1000. Restitution would have been on that order. Instead, Robertson was fined over $160,000 and spent 18 months in prison.

Again, he was prosecuted for EPA violations. EPA violations.

Not entirely true.

He was told that he "likely" needed "permits" to do what he was doing.

Incorrect. As previously pointed out, I provided EXACT wording from the court opinion. Again, I recommend you respond to that.

I already quoted from the court document in post #17, but i'll do it again:

Last line in the 4th paragraph:

"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."

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

The stuff about permits doesn't change the fact that he was told explicitly and repeatedly that he wasn't allowed to continue digging, and he proceeded to do so anyway.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I already quoted from the court document in post #17, but i'll do it again:

Last line in the 4th paragraph:

"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."

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

The stuff about permits doesn't change the fact that he was told explicitly and repeatedly that he wasn't allowed to continue digging, and he proceeded to do so anyway.

Punishment should be commensurate with the crime ... if there is one.

The EPA chose in this instance to set an example, meting out harsh draconian punishment so that property owners would think twice before challenging EPA authority. It is obvious to the most casual observer that a 1-foot wide ditch is not a navigable waterway, yet the EPA claimed authority as if it were.

The Trump administration reining back WOTUS is a very good thing. WOTUS was an overreach, even an abuse of power.

 

[whatbogsends]

Punishment should be commensurate with the crime ... if there is one.

The EPA chose in this instance to set an example, meting out harsh draconian punishment so that property owners would think twice before challenging EPA authority. It is obvious to the most casual observer that a 1-foot wide ditch is not a navigable waterway, yet the EPA claimed authority as if it were.

The Trump administration reining back WOTUS is a very good thing. WOTUS was an overreach, even an abuse of power.

And this refutes that he was digging on lands he didn't own....how?

Nevermind, I can plainly see that you're not even responding to that and have moved on to your next talking point.

Here's the thing - i'm against impractical and onerous regulations (IMO most need reform rather than abolishment). However, i'm also against making the argument by pushing a false narrative.

 

[NightHawkeye]

And this refutes that he was digging on lands he didn't own....how?

I wasn't refuting that. I've never refuted that.

Not even sure why you're so focused on that when it's a minor aspect of the prosecution.

Nevermind, I can plainly see that you're not even responding to that and have moved on to your next talking point.

I can plainly see that you're intent on insulting, haranguing and pursuing your own narrative rather than discussing the merits of the matter.

Once again, Joe Robertson was prosecuted for EPA violations. The trespass was incidental to EPA violations. Anyone who actually bothered to look at the court order would understand that.

Here's the thing - i'm against impractical and onerous regulations ...

I don't think so. I don't believe you at all. If you actually were against onerous regulations, you would have discussed that aspect of Joe Robertson's case.

 

[Hank77]

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.

Who is "they"? I live in logging country. I've never known the US Forest Service do any logging, they don't even have the equipment to do it.
They hire logging contractors and tell them where they can log. They mark the trees that they are allowed to cut. There is very little clear cutting (where the cut all the trees) under the US Forest Service.

You should have filed a complaint against the logging company and forced them to pay you for the lumber that they mistakenly removed from your property.

 

[whatbogsends]

I wasn't refuting that. I've never refuted that.

Not even sure why you're so focused on that when it's a minor aspect of the prosecution.

I can plainly see that you're intent on insulting, haranguing and pursuing your own narrative rather than discussing the merits of the matter.

Once again, Joe Robertson was prosecuted for EPA violations. The trespass was incidental to EPA violations. Anyone who actually bothered to look at the court order would understand that.

I don't think so. I don't believe you at all. If you actually were against onerous regulations, you would have discussed that aspect of Joe Robertson's case.

Regardless of whether you believe whose land he was digging up to be a minor aspect of the prosecution, it's a fairly significant factual discrepancy from the narrative you've been pushing,

You don't need to believe me. When you put forth a dishonest narrative, correcting the record is the first priority. Iluvatar did just that in post #8. Instead of owning up to the false claims, you ignored the corrections, and tried to nitpick criticism of them (regarding Iluvatar's comment about permits), and then insisted that you've been honest throughout, despite the obvious.

He was not sent to jail for "digging small ponds on his property". He was sent to jail for, after already having been warned repeatedly not to dig, continuing to dig multiple ponds on properties including other private property and government property. The first time he violated the EPA regulation he was given a warning. Your narrative omits this detail and obscures other relevant information as well.

You didn't write this thread with a focus on the merits (or lack thereof) of the EPA regulations. You attempted to cite alleged injustice in the application of the EPA regulations as proof that the regulations were bad. You seem to think that me not discussing onerous regulations means i'm not against them - the thrust of this thread wasn't an honest discussion about onerous regulations, it was a slanted article by the Daily Caller which pushed an anti-regulation narrative. There's a chasm between "regulations are bad" and "regulations are needed, but must be constructed in a way to make them manageable, meaningful, and limit any unintended consequences".

 

[NightHawkeye]

Regardless of whether you believe whose land he was digging up to be a minor aspect of the prosecution, it's a fairly significant factual discrepancy from the narrative you've been pushing ...

Ok. Let's follow your line of reasoning then. You are justifying the EPA's draconian actions ... which the Supreme Court later over-turned. It's not a winning argument.

Why you feel the need to persist in putting forth a losing argument is baffling, unless of course your intention is not to actually discuss the relative merits of the case ... but to harp on minor issues to harass and harangue.

You didn't write this thread with a focus on the merits (or lack thereof) of the EPA regulations.

Correct. I was lauding the Trump administration for rolling back EPA regulations.

You attempted to cite alleged injustice in the application of the EPA regulations as proof that the regulations were bad. You seem to think that me not discussing onerous regulations means i'm not against them - the thrust of this thread wasn't an honest discussion about onerous regulations, it was a slanted article by the Daily Caller which pushed an anti-regulation narrative. There's a chasm between "regulations are bad" and "regulations are needed, but must be constructed in a way to make them manageable, meaningful, and limit any unintended consequences".

Ahh ... so now you've moved on to lambasting the Daily Caller.

Having a bad day?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Who is "they"? I live in logging country. I've never known the US Forest Service do any logging, they don't even have the equipment to do it.
They hire logging contractors and tell them where they can log.

That sounds about right.

They mark the trees that they are allowed to cut. There is very little clear cutting (where the cut all the trees) under the US Forest Service.

Clear cutting is what they did.

You should have filed a complaint against the logging company and forced them to pay you for the lumber that they mistakenly removed from your property.

Probably. I never understood why my father didn't file a complaint. The incident was some decades ago. Maybe he did file a complaint that I'm not aware of, or maybe he just didn't want to make waves. The particular piece of property wasn't of great concern to him, though it's always been one of my favorites.

 

[Hank77]

Probably. I never understood why my father didn't file a complaint. The incident was some decades ago. Maybe he did file a complaint that I'm not aware of, or maybe he just didn't want to make waves. The particular piece of property wasn't of great concern to him, though it's always been one of my favorites.

I can understand that. The old timers were inclined to let things go. Sometimes they just didn't have the time or the resources for a courtroom battle which it could likely have begun.

 

[whatbogsends]

Ok. Let's follow your line of reasoning then. You are justifying the EPA's draconian actions ... which the Supreme Court later over-turned. It's not a winning argument.

Why you feel the need to persist in putting forth a losing argument is baffling, unless of course your intention is not to actually discuss the relative merits of the case ... but to harp on minor issues to harass and harangue.

The only losing argument i'm seeing is the one in which the OP has to misrepresent the facts of the case to make it sound much worse than it was. It ignores that he was told repeatedly that he was not allowed to dig on those lands, yet continued to do so. From the court briefing, it sounded like continued defiance of legal orders contributed to his harsh sentence.

It wasn't that he couldn't properly determine that the particular water pathway was "navigable water", it was that he did what he did after being told he wasn't allowed to do so.
I agree that, even with his continued defiance, the punishment was excessive, but it was more than this poor guy got railroaded without warning.

All of that doesn't mean that the legislation, itself, was excessive or bad. The application in this particular case seemed to be unnecessarily punitive, but that still doesn't mean it's bad legislation, or that it should just be removed.

As far as the Supreme Court decision, you conveniently ignored DaisyDay's post #21. Again, not bothering with facts that disrupt your narrative.

Correct. I was lauding the Trump administration for rolling back EPA regulations.

Without actually discussing much about the regulations themselves, only trying to make them sound as bad as they could be by pointing out a case which you believe was unjust, but in doing so, you've mischaracterized the basic facts of the case, distorting what really happened.

Ahh ... so now you've moved on to lambasting the Daily Caller.

That's a pretty low threshold for lambasting.

Having a bad day?

My day's been fine, although I will admit dealing with incessant dishonesty gets tiring.

 

[NightHawkeye]

The only losing argument i'm seeing is the one in which the OP has to misrepresent the facts of the case to make it sound much worse than it was.

The case where a 79 year-old was fined over $160,000 for causing $1000 of property damage and sentenced to 18 months in jail where he died at the end of his sentence?

I'm making that sound worse than it was? Noting that the Supreme Court over-turned his conviction after his death. I'm making it sound worse than it was?

Really?

It ignores that he was told repeatedly ...

... by people who didn't even know the exact regulations ... or even if permits were actually required.

Do you surmise he might have been just a little frustrated by a federal bureaucracy which didn't quite know which end was up?

I'm making that sound worse than it was? Did I mention that he died in prison for committing $1000 in property damage?

It wasn't that he couldn't properly determine that the particular water pathway was "navigable water", it was that he did what he did after being told he wasn't allowed to do so.

... again, by a bureaucracy which wasn't quite sure if he even needed permits to do what he was doing ... much less being knowledgeable about what the regulations even meant ... being as the regulations were stretched far beyond any reasonable interpretation of their applicability.

Did I mention that the "navigable waterway" was a 1-foot wide creek? ... and that he died in prison?

I agree that, even with his continued defiance, the punishment was excessive ...

Thank you.

Whew ... it certainly took enough posts to elicit that agreement.

All of that doesn't mean that the legislation, itself, was excessive or bad.

The EPA stretched the WOTUS legislation past its breaking point. The application was absurd in multiple ways, regardless of how well written the legislation might have been.

Bureaucracy will do that you know. Some people think an all powerful government will fix their problems. It won't. An all-powerful government will be your worst nightmare. Just ask Joe Robertson's next of kin.

The application in this particular case seemed to be unnecessarily punitive, but that still doesn't mean it's bad legislation, or that it should just be removed.

The usual reaction to abusive regulations, by normal people, is to want them removed. When one has been abused, the time for nuanced discussion is long past.

As far as the Supreme Court decision, you conveniently ignored DaisyDay's post #21. Again, not bothering with facts that disrupt your narrative.

LOL ... I never saw the post.

Sorry if that's inconvenient for your narrative.

Without actually discussing much about the regulations themselves, only trying to make them sound as bad as they could be by pointing out a case which you believe was unjust, but in doing so, you've mischaracterized the basic facts of the case, distorting what really happened.

Details of WOTUS don't matter much to me now. The Trump administration is eliminating it.

Was there some particular detail you wanted to discuss?

My day's been fine, although I will admit dealing with incessant dishonesty gets tiring.

Hopefully clearing the air helps you feel better now ... though I suspect just another quick retort.

 

[whatbogsends]

The case where a 79 year-old was fined over $160,000 for causing $1000 of property damage and sentenced to 18 months in jail where he died at the end of his sentence?

I'm making that sound worse than it was? Noting that the Supreme Court over-turned his conviction after his death. I'm making it sound worse than it was?

Really?

... by people who didn't even know the exact regulations ... or even if permits were actually required.

Do you surmise he might have been just a little frustrated by a federal bureaucracy which didn't quite know which end was up?

I'm making that sound worse than it was? Did I mention that he died in prison for committing $1000 in property damage?

... again, by a bureaucracy which wasn't quite sure if he even needed permits to do what he was doing ... much less being knowledgeable about what the regulations even meant ... being as the regulations were stretched far beyond any reasonable interpretation of their applicability.

Did I mention that the "navigable waterway" was a 1-foot wide creek? ... and that he died in prison?

Thank you.

Whew ... it certainly took enough posts to elicit that agreement.

The EPA stretched the WOTUS legislation past its breaking point. The application was absurd in multiple ways, regardless of how well written the legislation might have been.

Bureaucracy will do that you know. Some people think an all powerful government will fix their problems. It won't. An all-powerful government will be your worst nightmare. Just ask Joe Robertson's next of kin.

The usual reaction to abusive regulations, by normal people, is to want them removed. When one has been abused, the time for nuanced discussion is long past.

LOL ... I never saw the post.

Sorry if that's inconvenient for your narrative.

Details of WOTUS don't matter much to me now. The Trump administration is eliminating it.

Was there some particular detail you wanted to discuss?

Hopefully clearing the air helps you feel better now ... though I suspect just another quick retort.

Even still, you misrepresent the facts. It's already shown to you (post #25), but the "$1000" property damage wasn't an estimate. It was a legal judgement. Legal judgement for damages have thresholds. In most states, the legal threshold for "felony destruction of property" is ~$1000. When the court says "property damage above $1000", all it's saying is the damage is over $1000, not approximately $1000.

"However, if the damage done is valued at more than $1,000, a domestic hoofed animal is killed, or the damage causes a substantial interruption or impairment in public utilities you will face felony charges and a potential sentence of up to 10 years in prison and fines reaching $50,000."

Montana Criminal Mischief - Laws & Penalties

Is 10 years in prison and $50,000 in fines excessive for doing just over $1000 property damage? Yes, but it has nothing to do with EPA regulations, and everything to do with Joe Robertson's case.

The property damage alone carried up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $50,000. That has NOTHING to do with EPA regulations.

As DaisyDay mentioned (and i pointed out in the last post), the Supreme Court vacating the case was because of his death, not because of the merits of the case.

You taking a victory lap as you continue your dishonesty isn't surprising in the least.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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. []
​

As much as I'm genuinely empathetic to the plight of old Joe and his widow....it seems like removing clean water regulations is the wrong way to deal with the issue.

It's a bit like killing all the elephants to stop the ivory trade.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm making that sound worse than it was? Did I mention that he died in prison for committing $1000 in property damage?

It's details like that that make conversing with you so frustrating. It's been pointed out to you multiple times that he wasn't convicted of "$1000 in property damage", but rather "greater than $1000". Every time you repeat this $1000 claim, you're being dishonest. You can make your point without pushing this lie, yet you choose to anyways.

Also, you're wrong about him dying in prison. He was at home, on parole, when he died:

This Veteran Was Sent to Prison for Digging Ponds on His Property

Robertson, sentenced in 2016, completed his 18 months behind bars in late 2017.

He was still on parole for the next 20 months when he died March 18 at age 80 of natural causes, according to his widow.

 

[NightHawkeye]

It's details like that that make conversing with you so frustrating. It's been pointed out to you multiple times that he wasn't convicted of "$1000 in property damage", but rather "greater than $1000". Every time you repeat this $1000 claim, you're being dishonest. You can make your point without pushing this lie, yet you choose to anyways.

Lodge your complaint with the US government. They're the ones who entered the property damage claim of $1000. Apparently, they couldn't justify a higher value. If they could have, they would have.

Also, you're wrong about him dying in prison. He was at home, on parole, when he died:

Good for him. Thanks for finding that detail. I feel better for him now.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Lodge your complaint with the US government. They're the ones who entered the property damage claim of $1000. Apparently, they couldn't justify a higher value. If they could have, they would have.

I don't believe that the precise amount of property damage was ever specified. Every court document I can find just says "damages in excess of $1000" or "more than $1000 in damages." As WBS said, that's a legal thing - as far as the courts are concerned, the charges (felony destruction of property) are the same if the damages are $1001 or $100000.

If you can find a reference to the specific amount of damages claimed by the government, please let me know, but it's clear that they were greater than $1000.