Tuesday, August 15, 2017

An interesting comment...


An interesting comment on my post Farmer Must Defend Plowing His Wheat Field 

I understand Duarte has decided to settle and I will post about that soon.

Anonymous said...

 I walked the neighboring parcels to the north of Duarte's in 2010, when looking to buy, and remember seeing cattle grazing on Duarte's.

First, this parcel and Duarte's were previously going to be covered by 3,500 homes - no CWA concerns over that.

The CWA exemptions include ranching and rotation of crops - forage for grazing is a crop - so being that Duarte's land was grazed since the last time a crop was grown
(1985, I think), it qualifies as an on-going farm use.

-- the neighboring parcel also has only been grazed for that same time period, timeline photos will show back as far as 1998.

-- the cattle owner also told me of the same farming history when I was there.

-- Also, Duarte plowed 4"-7" deep for wheat - if he deep-ripped, the seedlings would never see the light of day.

-- The neighboring parcel has way more vernal pools than Duarte's, yet was allowed to deep-rip without a permit.

-- the neighbor's deep-ripping is highly visible on Google Earth's 2013 photo (Paskenta Rd & Ohm Rd. & Rawson Ave., Red Bluff, CA).

-- also highly visible, is the much greater number of vernal pools of the neighbor's parcels, which show in 2015 & 2010 photos, compared to Duarte's to the south.

-- the neighbor's land is higher in elevation, (about 30 ft), than Duarte's, so any release of 'soil contaminants' are more likely to come from the deep-ripping of neighbor's land.

-- Neighbor also has a seasonal creek that was deep-ripped and goes from north of Ohm Rd., and joins Coyote Creek east of Duarte's parcel, then on through 11 miles of farmland to the Sacramento River - the neighbor's 'deep-ripped creek' can be seen in 2013 photo.

-- in contrast, there were no permits taken by the Rainbow family for the 18"-36" deep potty holes they dug at Malheur forest, nor were they fined for CWA violations, and with 13,00 attendees, they not taken the required permit for groups over 75.

-----and Malheur Nat, Forest has now declared it a health hazard area.

-- Duarte was told that the fifth amendment rights don't apply, unless the government waives impunity.

That would mean all constitutional rights are null and void, unless the government chooses to waive impunity - which it does only for the enviros by cowering down and handing them a check via the EAJA.

-- ironic that the EAJA, created to help individual citizens financially when fighting gov. overreach, has resulted in increased gov. overreach while financially ruining individual citizens.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sadly illustrates the deep pockets option..... This ol' boy would have to take scalps and face the music: pockets with no jingle, brim-full of crabby, and too old to suck up to the submission of principles. soapweed

Anonymous said...

I forgot to include in the Duarte comment that in 2013, when this case started, the WOTUS rule wasn't yet finalized and didn't get finalized until 2015.