Posted on 05/29/2021 2:46:41 PM PDT by george76
Sioux Falls, South Dakota; : A third-generation farmer filed a lawsuit today against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is unlawfully preventing him from farming one of his fields.
In 2011, a division of the Department of Agriculture ruled that a small seasonal mud puddle on Arlen Foster’s farm is protected by federal law as a wetland. Even though the federal government has no authority to regulate such puddles, the department is forcing Foster to choose between productively using his field or participating in federal programs for farmers, like crop insurance.
“The government lacks the authority to insist that he leave the mud puddle ‘muddy,’ so it’s threatening to take away Foster’s ability to participate in federal programs to achieve the outcome that it wants,” said Tony Francois, a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. “But Foster has a right to use his property, and coercing him in this way violates his right.”
Although Foster requested that the government revisit its designation of his mud puddle as a protected wetland, in light of new evidence to the contrary, it refused. Now Foster is suing over the unconstitutional conditions the agency is attaching to his participation in crop insurance and other federal programs.
Foster is represented free of charge by Pacific Legal Foundation. The case, Foster v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota.
My dog visits his personal mud puddle each morning.
Is he a plant for the FBI/EPA/et.al.?
A local farmer constructed a drainage ditch and the government designated it a wetland.
Such abuse has usually been limited to the west coast in the past.
And it has been rampant.
Beware.
I thought the fellow in Wyoming prevailed on issues like this.
;
“Funny”.
Your Constitutional Rights are rights given by God which the Constitution simply recognizes. They cannot be taken away. By anyone. Of course, today, they become objects of trade and you can choose this or that.
This is why the Founders did what they did in the first place.
A couple on Priest Lake, ID wanted to build a house across the road around the lake. They backfilled low areas to create a building site. The Sacketts were ordered by the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to stop, restore the land and apply for a federal wetlands permit, or be fined tens of thousands of dollars per day.
The Sacketts’ property is on part of what was once a large wetlands complex called the Kalispell Bay Fen leading from Priest Lake. Today, a road divides the wetlands, and the Sacketts’ property is across the road from the rest of the wetlands and the lake. The property is similarly within 30 feet of a stream running to the lake but again is separated from the stream by a road.
The Sacketts argue they did not need a permit because the road separates their property from Priest Lake and the other wetlands.
EPA contended that the wetlands on the Sacketts’ property were protected despite the road. Current regulations in place since 1987 protect wetlands separated from larger waterways by roads or man-made barriers, if they have surface or shallow subsurface water connections, and if the two waterways are “reasonably close so as to support a science-based inference of an ecological interconnection.”
The Sacketts sued the EPA, but the agency argued they were not entitled to their day in court until a final agency action was issued. The 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the agency. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 9 th Circuit and made clear that landowners may bring a civil lawsuit challenging a federal government order under the Clean Water Act prior to a final agency action.
But, the SCOTUS ruling only permitted the Sacketts to challenge EPA’s assertion of jurisdiction over their property; the Court did not resolve whether the terms and conditions of the Compliance Order itself were subject to immediate judicial review. Justice Alito recommended that Congress act to clarify issues regarding the reach of the Clean Water Act.
On May 3, 2012, the Appeals Court for the Ninth Circuit remanded the Sacketts challenge to the compliance order to the district court, consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. The United States District Court for the District of Idaho ruled against the Sacketts, finding that the area in question was a wetland and had been filled without necessary permits.
After years of litigation, the Sacketts gave up and left the area. Unfortunately, Sackett was convicted of trying to procure a 12 year old girl for sex, was prosecuted, and convicted in North Dakota.
What Constitutional rights? Those seem to be a thing of the past now.
Good!!! Lawfare worked for leftists for 50 years. Now it’s our turn.
UN Agenda 21 / 2030 ( Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
That looks like a typical farmer’s field in Wisconsin. The smart ones filled in the divots.
If you want to know more about how these actions began look up Kalamath Falls, Oregon where ecologically minded farmers where driven off their land when the Feds seized their water to save a mud dwelling fish which was doing just fine. Lack of water in the field ponds killed hundreds of deer and other uncounted animals.
Eventually, the farmers were forced to sell out to The Nature Conservancy which in turn sold a portion of the aggregate land purchases to the Feds covering their expenses and then sold the actual farms and buildings to their members who continued to farm exactly as the former owners had.
NGOs work hand in glove with the feds to get as much land as possible or at least take control over it when the owners pass.
Its a Federally sanctioned scam
Picture of mud puddle....probably another bureaucrat blunder
It doesn’t take much to attract waterfowl to what is really just a low spot in the field. A bureaucrat sees the waterfowl and makes a decision that the “wetland” supports migratory birds, thus becoming “protected.”
#DefundTheDeepState
On a related note.
Why do they say:
“Save the wetland” and “Save the rainforest”?
Because no one would give money to save a swamp or a jungle.
I see low spots like that in corn fields all over the place in CNY.
those farmers ought to be filling them in somas to avoid this kind of crap.
USDA now = United States Discrimination. Agency
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.