Your loyal support makes Free Republic possible
and your continuing participation makes FR the number one,
independent, pro-life, pro-family, pro-small government, pro-defense,
grassroots conservative forum on the Net!!
Posted on 01/17/2015 4:05:36 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. federal court has ruled for the first time that manure from livestock facilities can be regulated as solid waste, a decision hailed by environmentalists as opening the door to potential legal challenges against facilities across the country.
A large dairy in Washington state, Cow Palace Dairy, polluted ground water by over applying manure to soil, ruled Judge Thomas Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on Wednesday.
"The practices of this mega-dairy are no different than thousands of others across the country," said Jessica Culpepper, an attorney at Public Justice, one of the firms that represented the plaintiffs, a collection of public advocacy groups.
The case is scheduled to go to trial in March to decide the extent of the contamination and the clean-up.
This is the first time the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which governs the disposal of solid and hazardous waste, has been applied to animal waste from a farm.
Industrial livestock operations produce hundreds of millions of tons of manure annually.
The district court ruling, if upheld, could affect any large livestock facility that produces more manure than it can responsibly manage, including poultry, beef and hog farms, Culpepper said.
An attorney for Cow Palace said on Friday that it plans to ask for an appeal.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Go to hell!
“It reads like the dairy was dumping waste on the fields.”
Everything that the libtards don’t like is “waste”.
Unless the business is dumping raw manure in your property, STFU
Farmer have been putting animal waste on soil since we domesticated them. I grew up in a dairy town and my classmate’s father became a millionaire hauling cow manure and selling it.
[Beats Le Car!]
It should be noted that all this manure could be dumped in Wash D. C.
For those of you unfamiliar with farming, that’s called “organic farming.”
A warning to you:
Idiots don't last long at FR. You've just joined in the last month.
Post more moronic nonsense and you're gone before the end of next week. JR doesn't tolerate fools very well.
If you have e dairy with 2000 cows and your total fields are only 5 acres....... Dumping all your manure and cow shit on those five acres will pollute the water.
If that manure is spread on 300 acres I doubt it will pollute the water. It will help fertilize them
When I wrote ‘people in positions of power’—I meant politicians.
They may have coined the term, but such farms were created economic forces, something Leftists are ignorant of.
And no one would notice any change there.
We always figured that one acre of ground per animal was about right.
A chicken farm on the Eastern Shore of Maryland was unsuccessfully sued in 2011 for manure run off polluting.
http://www.oceancity.com/ocean-city-today/oct-news/decision-in-chicken-manure-lawsuit-applauded
“Go to hell!”
I think Revel is right from what I’ve read. To suggest that businesses (including farms) do not pollute ground water is “crazy talk”.
LOL!
Math is La Belle Dame sans Merci!
But we’re told over and over again that organic is better.
Organic means “Grown in poo” people!
Wait till they find out that that pure, healthy, twice as expensive organic food grows in “pure” sh**.
"This is the first time the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [emphasis added], which governs the disposal of solid and hazardous waste, has been applied to animal waste from a farm."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
With all due respect to mom & pop, as a consequence of the parents of the farmers likely not making sure that their children were taught the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood, the farmers are probably not able to argue the following points against the unconstitutional federal law that they have broken.
Regarding the federal government's so-called constitutional power to legislatively address environmental issues, with the exception of the federal entities indicated in the Constitution's Clause 16 & 17 of Section 8 of Article I as examples, entities under the exclusive legislative control of Congress, the states have never delegated to Congress, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate environmental issues.
In fact, environmental issues aside, note that the Supreme Court has historically clarified, in terms of the 10th Amendment nonetheless, that the states have never delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate intrastate agricultural production.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Also note that the excerpt above indicates the following about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers. Regardless that federal Democrats and RINOs will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that they cannot do something then they can do it, note that the Supreme Court has condemned that foolish idea. More specifically, the Supreme Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not expressly delegated to the feds via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate agriculture in this case, are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Again, I don’t think that the farmers will argue the above points concerning the unconstitutional federal law that they have broken because they were probably never taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.
Reading
Writing
Arithmetic
The federal government's constitutionally limited powers
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.