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

[whatbogsends]

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.

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

In court procedures, when the legal threshold is $1000, the filing merely indicates "in excess of $1000 (the legal threshold)". No one "entered the property damage claim of $1000"

The court document said " willfully injuring and committing depredation of property of the United States, causing more than $1,000 worth of damage to the property". Establishing that it's "more than $1000" is all they need to do to establish the threshold for felony property damage.

 

[iluvatar5150]

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.

In court procedures, when the legal threshold is $1000, the filing merely indicates "in excess of $1000 (the legal threshold)". No one "entered the property damage claim of $1000"

The court document said " willfully injuring and committing depredation of property of the United States, causing more than $1,000 worth of damage to the property". Establishing that it's "more than $1000" is all they need to do to establish the threshold for felony property damage.

I wonder how many more people will have to point out that distinction...

 

[NightHawkeye]

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.

Clean water is not the issue. We had clean water before Obama implemented WOTUS. We'll have clean water after it is gone.

You might remember that the same agency responsible for WOTUS is the agency which horribly polluted the Colorado river, killing all the fish for a thousand miles and making the water unusable for thousands of native Americans who depended upon the river for their livelihood.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Clean water is not the issue. We had clean water before Obama implemented WOTUS. We'll have clean water after it is gone.

Also known as the Clean Water Act.

You might remember that the same agency responsible for WOTUS is the agency which horribly polluted the Colorado river, killing all the fish for a thousand miles and making the water unusable for thousands of native Americans who depended upon the river for their livelihood.

You mean the EPA?

 

[Semper-Fi]

The Environmental Protection agency used the Navigable Waters Act to amass an astounding
amount of federal power.

The epa had become a tool of politics. Instead of enforcing laws created for the people and by the people via Congress, it is showed itself to be an activist arm of far-left environmentalist groups.

Besides authority over bodies of water that are large enough to transport goods by boat, now it has the authority to regulate the streams, ditches, gullies, swamps and even seasonal waters that potentially feed into any navigable waterway—plus 4,000 feet of land in any direction from any such culvert, wash, arroyo, mudflat or seasonal marsh.

That’s a lot of territory. Hundreds of millions of acres.
I favor undoing this power grab from Obama era.

 

[DaisyDay]

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.

The way you word that makes it sound as though he died in jail which is false. He served 18 months and was released on parole. He was 80 when he died.

He kept digging on Federal land and private land not his even, putting the debris in adjacent wetlands and tributary streams after he was warned to stop. That he was old when he did this is not a reason not to prosecute.

 

[NightHawkeye]

The way you word that makes it sound as though he died in jail which is false. He served 18 months and was released on parole. He was 80 when he died.

He kept digging on Federal land and private land not his even, putting the debris in adjacent wetlands and tributary streams after he was warned to stop. That he was old when he did this is not a reason not to prosecute.

I never said he shouldn't have been stopped. There are however far more relevant statutes and far less draconian measures available to stop him from doing what he did.
1) Trespass and civil sanctions are the usual remedies for such situations. Why did this situation need anything else?
2) The "Waters of the US" Act did not even apply to his situation. As pointed out in the legal proceedings, the closest navigable waterway was something like a hundred miles away. @SemperFi correctly assessed the overreach of the EPA on this matter in the post preceding yours. Did you take the time to read post #65?

The remaining question worth asking though is whether what Joe did was all that bad? Or, could it be that perhaps what he did benefited the land and wildlife there in multiple ways? One suspects that the usual penalties weren't applied because a jury would never have convicted him of damaging the land. He certainly didn't pollute the waters of the US, which might have been a legitimate reason for the EPA to prosecute him.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Even if they'd been stock ponds, it wouldn't change the idiocy of EPA designating a small stream as a "navigable waterway".

As someone else pointed out, epa did not change what a "navigable waterway" by boat is.

They gave themselves the authority to regulate the streams, ditches, gullies, swamps and even seasonal waters that potentially [feed into any navigable waterway].

This does not mean a small stream is now a navigable waterway by boat.

 

[wing2000]

Clean water is not the issue. We had clean water before Obama implemented WOTUS. We'll have clean water after it is gone.

...I guess we're supposed to take your word for it? Or science?

 

[DaisyDay]

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?

They only overturned it BECAUSE he died, not because of the merits of the appeal.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Here's an interesting assessment of the WOTUS overreach by a group directly affected:
Waters of the U.S. | NAHB

On Dec. 11, 2018, the Trump administration proposed a new WOTUS definition to replace the controversial 2015 rule that went so far as to regulate man-made ditches and isolated ponds on private property. The proposed rule is more consistent with Congressional intent for the CWA and court opinions, and should be easier to implement because it bases jurisdiction on observable, surface water connections.
...
Obtaining permits is costly and time consuming. For example, one study found that it costs on average $270,000 and takes 788 days to obtain an individual CWA fill permit.

As the EPA and Corps expanded the definition of "waters of the United States," builders needed to obtain additional or more onerous permits, spending more time and resources to avoid wet features — this has been made all the more difficult because existing regulations do not clearly define which features to avoid.​

If even a group with substantial resources like the NAHB couldn't find enough clarity to navigate WOTUS successfully, one can imagine how frustrated poor Joe Robertson might have felt dealing with the bureaucracy.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Undo ‘Oppressive’ Obama-Era Water [Regulations]

Back in 2014, President Barack Obama urged his cabinet to help him identify ways to advance economic recovery by circumventing the legislature.

He openly justified executive overreach by saying that it was necessary to circumvent legislatures because they refused to do what he wanted.

“We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need”. “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in ...”

President Obama notified both houses of Congress of his decision to go it alone in areas where they refused to act to his satisfaction. An act of blatant violation of America’s tripartite system of checks and balances that did not even elicit an outcry, but praise.

Obama did not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he become the very danger that separation of powers was designed to avoid.
-

Now Unelected bureaucrats[some call the deep state] are making law via administrative regulations, trying violations of that law via their own adjudicatory proceedings, and making arrests with their [own paramilitary police forces].

Administrative agencies that have their own military-style units includes: the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Park Service, the Postal Inspection Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
-

The Tyranny of the Administrative State-Unelected
bureaucrats should not wield legislative power.
The Tyranny of the Administrative State

 

[JCFantasy23]

Either way a 77 year old man being sent to prison for that is ridiculous. Yes he may be have not been in the right, but good grief, sounds like overkill and a lack of compassion that our justice system enjoys.

As for the water regulations, I'd have to look further into them, I don't know enough about it yet to know if it's good to undo it or not. Trump has not been environmentally friendly for the most part.

 

[whatbogsends]

Either way a 77 year old man being sent to prison for that is ridiculous. Yes he may be have not been in the right, but good grief, sounds like overkill and a lack of compassion that our justice system enjoys.

As for the water regulations, I'd have to look further into them, I don't know enough about it yet to know if it's good to undo it or not. Trump has not been environmentally friendly for the most part.

What does the age of the person involved have to do with his sentencing (other than if the person who performed the act was a minor)?

While I agree that the punishment seems heavy-handed, as I pointed out, the statutes in Montana on property damage alone carried a sentence of up to 10 years in prison and up to $50,000 in fines.

 

[JCFantasy23]

What does the age of the person involved have to do with his sentencing (other than if the person who performed the act was a minor)?

I think the prison term itself sounds too large for that act for any age - but him being elderly makes it even sadder IMO.

 

[whatbogsends]

I think the prison term itself sounds too large for that act for any age - but him being elderly makes it even sadder IMO.

While it may make it sadder, it doesn't make it more or less (in)just.

 

[JCFantasy23]

While it may make it sadder, it doesn't make it more or less (in)just.

What's your point? My post stated it wasn't fair, but I didn't make a breakdown of an age group it would be fair toward. Again, it wouldn't be fair for any age.

 

[whatbogsends]

What's your point? My post stated it wasn't fair, but I didn't make a breakdown of an age group it would be fair toward. Again, it wouldn't be fair for any age.

My comment had to do with the fact that your initial post "a 77 year old man being sent to prison for that is ridiculous" seemed to imply that it was additionally unfair due to Robertson's age. I apologize if I misinterpreted your intent.

We both agree that the sentence was harsh.