Supreme Court considers whether to regulate farm plowing

Sac Bee ^ | 12/10/02 | Mark Sherman

[NormsRevenge]

WASHINGTON(AP) - Supreme Court justices found themselves Tuesday in the "guck" - in one justice's word - of trying to determine whether a farmer's plowing can be regulated.

Legal arguments shared court time with a discussion of farming implements in the case of a California farmer who is challenging $500,000 in fines and an order to restore four acres of wetlands.

[B4Ranch]

We need a farmer in here. Time to speak for the farmers, Dear.

[Free the USA]

bump

[BOBWADE]

Thank god W will be the President appointing the next couple justices and that idiot doushley won't have a say.

[Amerigomag]

For the non farmers in the group the issue is deep plowing (referred to as ripping) and it's effect on the ability of soil to hold runoff water on the surface after a rain.

In areas that have vernal pools these local ponds are usually created by a thin (or thick) layer of clay just beneath the surface. The clay layer prevents even small amounts of water from seeping down into the underground. This water remains on the surface and creates a small pond or "wetland".

Ripping breaks up the clay layer and allows the water to quickly disappear underground.

This case is not about polluting the pond but preventing its formation. The pollution issue is being raised by the greenies because it fits the federal law, not the circumstances of this case.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[error99]

fer later bump

[nightdriver]

"Jeffrey P. Minear, assistant to the solicitor general, said deep plowing at the Borden Ranch throughout the 1990s punctured a patchwork of swales at the bottom of the area's hills and polluted them by churning up clay and soil."

This poor sad sack is just part of the creeping oppressiveness that is happening in our country's government. He's never heard of subsoiling and the fact that in order to make some land capable of bearing crops, you have to allow it to drain.

Just part of the same madness of letting the government rule every aspect of societal activity. We don't need wetlands, anyway, unless it is for more mosquito breeding grounds.

[EBUCK]

It's not who's "property is it?" that you should be asking...
It's who's property is being damaged by activities such as these.

That is how they are going about it. They have set up a system in which the "environment" is the property of the people (and by proxy, the US gubment) and whenever a private property owner, by modifying his land, "damages" the environment he is actually damaging the peoples property. Kinda slick when you think about it. They have negated all property rights (excepth their own of course) without setting foot on actual property rights.

The ESA must be eliminated.

EBUCK