It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

EPA Goes After Low-Income Farmers In Land Grab

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:42 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

How many of those farmers are litigants or are represented by the associations? Who is anticipating all this land being taking out of agricultural use?

There's no false argument here at all. I smell BS and I'm asking relevant questions.

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:44 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Wow...So you did not even read the information provided.. I gave in the op a link, and several excerpts to a case from 2014 which states that the EPA under the Obama administration is trying to shut down most farmers in those states...

Yet you ignored the information provided and set off to try to defame me?...

I am not the subject of this thread... Discuss the information provided...

and here you go...

Actually, I guarantee that I spent more time reading what you linked than you yourself did.

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:50 PM

originally posted by: ketsuko
But remember folks ... The Bundys were the real villains all along ...

Come on. What kind of weak one-liner is that? The Bundys didn't lose the use of land they owned because of the EPA. They didn't own the land in the first place and the EPA wasn't involved at all. They didn't want to pay the ridiculously low price per head in grazing fees because they obviously believe that all public land should be available for open grazing.

Not even remotely related to what's going on with the EPA and state and municipal authorities and the Chesapeake Bay watershed except once a dog-whistle term like "land grab" is used, conservative brains lose the ability to question claims.
edit on 2016-2-12 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 12:19 AM
The question is one of jurisdiction, and that question is answered very clearly in our Constitution:

Article VI, Section 2.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Article I, Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Now, do the particulars of the EPA's and more usually the Army Corps of Engineers' administration of the various Clean Water Acts pass Constitutional muster? That is still being decided. Rapanos v. United States (2006) stated that the Federal Government needs to be able to show clearly how administering a specific waterway/source/wetland is associated with the "waters of the United States" provided for in previous legislation. Court Order in 2015 further limited the EPA's sphere against policy statements that basically did attempt to place virtually all waters under control of the Federal Government.


Congress makes law under the aegis of the Constitution, SCOTUS and the Federal Courts restrict that law when it supercedes the authority of the Constitution.

So ... checks and balances ... system working as intended

Thank you Founders!

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 12:28 AM

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Actually, I guarantee that I spent more time reading what you linked than you yourself did.

You certainly did not... You claimed these people are industrialists when the excerpts and the information shows they are small family owned farms...

You made nothing but false statements, first trying to attack me, then by attacking these families of farmers...

Your only argument is to try to defame...

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 01:20 AM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Why should "small family owned" farms not have to meet zoning changes and pollution regulations?

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 02:33 AM

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Why should "small family owned" farms not have to meet zoning changes and pollution regulations?

The EPA under the Obama administration is redefining the Clean Waters Act to include ALL waterways, whether or not they are permanent... Such as non-point sources. This includes all land where it rains, and snowmelt moves over, or through the ground fertilizer, or manure... This essentially makes ALL LAND government controlled. Farmers have tried their best, and even though there is an improvement, in many areas a 40% improvement, the EPA claims this is not enough...

They are taking the Clean Water Act to the extreme to have all land under government control...

Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment plants, comes from many diffuse sources. NPS pollution is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural and human-made pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters and ground waters

edit on 13-2-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add link.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 02:47 AM
For those people that don't understand what is going on, here is a graph from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation showing the bay’s water quality has improved 40 percent since the early 1980s.

You will find the graph on page 19, almost the last page in the report.

The large blue point in the middle and lower part of the graph shows how the bay's water quality was worse in the 1980s, than it is now. The higher the data points were the better quality of the water. Yet despite this the EPA, and Obama administration want to claim this is not enough and want to take control of these lands.

edit on 13-2-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 03:47 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You certainly did not... You claimed these people are industrialists when the excerpts and the information shows they are small family owned farms...

You made nothing but false statements, first trying to attack me, then by attacking these families of farmers...

Your only argument is to try to defame...

Point of fact — the plaintiffs/appellants in the litigation are Industry Associations. You can be in deep denial all you want but that doesn't change reality.

Appellants American Farm Bureau Federation; Pennsylvania Farm Bureau; Fertilizer Institute; U.S. Poultry & Egg Association; National Pork Producers Council; National Corn Growers Association; and National Association of Home Builders consent to the filing.

It's impossible for this to be any clearer.

American Farm Bureau Federation - from Wikipedia:

According to a 2012 article in The Nation, the AFBF retains twenty-two registered lobbyists. In 2012, it was the top contributor to federal candidates, parties, and outside groups with payments of over $1 million; 62% to Republicans. Over the past decade, the AFBF spent $16 million, 45% of the total spent by all of the nation’s ten largest agribusiness interests

Fertilizer Institute - from their website:

TFI is the leading voice in the fertilizer industry, representing the public policy, communication and statistical needs of producers, manufacturers, retailers and transporters of fertilizer.

U.S. Poultry & Egg Association - from their website:

The U.S. Poultry & Egg Association is the world's largest and most active poultry organization. Membership includes producers and processors of broilers, turkeys, ducks, eggs, and breeding stock, as well as allied companies. Formed in 1947, the association has affiliations in 26 states and member companies worldwide. For specific program information, use the links below.

National Pork Council - from Wikipedia:

According to NPPC's website, their mission is to "fight for legislation and regulations, develop revenue and market opportunities and protect the livelihoods of America’s 67,000 pork producers. Public policy issues on which it focuses are in the areas of agriculture and industry, animal health and food safety, environment and energy, and international trade." [3]

Beyond legislation and regulation, NPPC is involved in the political process through a political action committee, PorkPAC. The PAC seeks to educate the public and support candidates at the state and federal levels who support the industry.[4]

NPPC also creates ad hoc task forces to study or provide guidance on industry issues. NPPC receives advice and works closely with the meat packing industry and animal health and feed companies, as well as the National Pork Board. Together the NPPC and NPB have formed joint task forces on certain issues.[5]

National Corn Growers Association - from Wikipedia

NCGA actively defends the interests of corn growers in government farm policy,[7] including advocating for subsidies for crop insurance in annual farm bills.[8][9] In addition, it also publishes material and conducts webinars to better educate farmers about the options available to them for crop insurance.[10]

NCGA provides standards and guidelines for the efficacious use of biotechnology in corn production (with particular attention to the use of genetically modifiedversions of corn), as well as advocating its benefits.[2]

NCGA has represented farmers in deals made with companies such as Monsanto that produce genetically modified crops, where farmers share data with the companies in exchange for tips from the companies on planting strategies.[3]

National Association of Home Builders - from Wikipedia:

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) is one of the largest trade associations in the United States, based upon 2011 annual budgets.[1]

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., NAHB's mission is "to enhance the climate for housing and the building industry. Chief among NAHB's goals is providing and expanding opportunities for all consumers to have safe, decent and affordable housing."[2]

There's nothing more to be said unless you want to apologize for calling me a liar.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:03 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Hey..all those corporate organizations are just representing the little guy, because...freedom?

No, but seriously, 'small' farms is a relative term. I don't think anyone's personal farm is being impacted.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:18 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The large blue point in the middle and lower part of the graph shows how the bay's water quality was worse in the 1980s, than it is now. The higher the data points were the better quality of the water. Yet despite this the EPA, and Obama administration want to claim this is not enough and want to take control of these lands.

Yes, it was worse in the 1980s. Do you want to know why it has been improving? Because Congress started taking action in the late 70's to clean up American waterways — including of course, the CWA (1977 I believe?)

Chesapeake Bay Program

In 1983, the governors of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania; the mayor of the District of Columbia; and the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed The Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983.[1] From this act, the Chesapeake Bay Program Executive Council was formed.

Since the signing of 1983 agreement, the Chesapeake Bay Program has adopted two additional agreements that provide overall guidance for Chesapeake Bay restoration:

The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement established the Chesapeake Bay Program's goal to reduce the amount of nutrients—primarily nitrogen and phosphorus—that enter the Chesapeake Bay by 40 percent by 2000. In 1992, the Chesapeake Bay Program partners agreed to continue the 40 percent reduction goal beyond 2000 and to attack nutrients at their source: upstream, in the Chesapeake Bay's tributaries.[2]

Here are the signatories:

Signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement

Chesapeake Bay Commission (legislative assembly representing Maryland,Virginia and Pennsylvania)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Commonwealth of Virginia
District of Columbia
State of Maryland
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

From the program's website, here are the principal partners in the Chesapeake Bay Program:

Chesapeake Bay Commission
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Commonwealth of Virginia
District of Columbia
State of Delaware
State of Maryland
State of New York
State of West Virginia
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

You framed this as federal overreach. Specifically, you keep repeating that "the Obama administration" is trying to "take control" of everything. Yet the states aren't suing the EPA and there's nothing stopping them if they feel their authority is being usurped — just like states have sued the BLM (for example, New Mexico). Instead, in this case, we have INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS suing the EPA, claiming that there is federal overreach.

You continue to ignore the role of the states in the program and deny the involvement of industry associations that include those that represent FERTILIZER PRODUCERS and promote the use of GMOs (go Monsanto go?). You also conveniently ignore that this partnership of state agencies, the EPA and others to clean up Chesapeake Bay has been ongoing for 32 YEARS. Now you're bringing up the success of this program to discredit its very existence.

Have fun in your bubble.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:19 PM
This is just the tip of the iceberg. These things will increase as sea levels increase.

It is sad for the farmers, and shame on the government for taking these opportunities when they are weak, however these situations will become increasingly drastic.

There are definite plans in the works that will eventually impact most of the eastern seaboard communities, as sometime soon, without adequate architecture and protection, they may be under water.

If sea levels do rise as predicted, then we are looking at a massive relocation of people in the next hundred years.. and that could turn in to quite a crisis.

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 08:40 AM
The whole Oregon wildlife refuge takeover was bring much of the Ferderal Government's over bearing reach in this country. Many did support those folks. The Fedreal reserve moving unhindered in the direction it is will become a bigger and bigger it my prediction.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:28 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

So again you try to dismiss this by defaming, and trying to claim these groups are only corporations, and that the good guys is the Fed who want to take over these lands...


The American Farm Bereau Federation represents rural farmers...

Like always you try to leave out pertinent information...

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), commonly referred to as the Farm Bureau, is a nonprofit organization and describes itself as the largest general farm organization in the United States. The stated mission of AFBF is "working through our grassroots organizations to enhance and strengthen the lives of rural Americans and to build strong, prosperous agricultural communities". AFBF is headquartered in Washington, D.C. There are 50 state affiliates and one in Puerto Rico.

To make it more personal so people can see who is siding with the "bad guys" let me post what has been happening to farmers since Obama decided to redefine the Clean Waters Act...

Rancher fights $16 million EPA fine for building pond

Feds claim property owner violating Clean Water Act

Published: 08/28/2015 at 12:41 PM

A rancher who obtained the state permits he needed for a stock pond on his acreage near Fort Bridger, Wyoming, then received approval from the state when it was finished now is facing the possibility of fines totaling millions of dollars because he didnt get a permit from the federal government.

A lawsuit filed against the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday, however, argues federal law clearly exempts stock ponds from EPA rules, so he shouldn’t even have had to contact the agency.

EPA officials at the agency’s Denver office told WND they could not comment on the lawsuit filed in federal court in Wyoming by the Pacific Legal Foundation.

The foundation is representing Wyoming rancher Andy Johnson against the EPA compliance order threatening him with $37,500 in fines per day. During the 14 months that Johnson has contested the EPAs claim, his potential liability has risen to more than $16 million.

“[size=43We are challenging an outrageous example of EPA overreach against a private citizen who has done nothing wrong,” said PLF Staff Attorney Jonathan Wood. “Andy Johnson constructed a pond for his livestock by damming a stream on his private property with no connection to any navigable water. Under the plain terms of the Clean Water Act, he was entirely within his rights, and didnt need federal bureaucrats permission.

Landowner engages in clean water act; receives EPA fine

By Rebekah Rast — Dexter Lutter was expecting an award; instead he got a $20,000 fine.

He made environmental improvements on his land — his farm — by taking steps to clean up the water supply and better preserve the soil, but the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fined him for his efforts.

“That’s how out of touch I am,” Lutter says. “I feel like we should have won a medal for what we did, but the EPA tells us we were wrong.”

A small manmade open ditch ran through Lutters property in Noble County, Ind. It was in need of repair, and Lutter got permission from his county to place tile drains for the collection of the agricultural discharge and cover over the eroding open ditch. This not only saved county taxpayer dollars, but also cleaned up the water supply and prevented further soil erosion.

But that doesn’t matter. According to Noble County and Lutter, they were told they violated the Clean Water Act. This is despite the fact that Lutter said the ditch was manmade and used only for agricultural discharge and did not impede the flow of any main waterways — usual exemptions under the Clean Water Act.


Utah critics speak out against new Clean Water Act rules

Home | Policy | Energy & Environment

27 states challenge Obama water rule in court

By Timothy Cama - 06/30/15 12:02 PM EDT

Nine states sued the Obama administration Tuesday over its rule asserting power over small waterways like streams and wetlands, bringing the total number of states challenging the regulation to 27.

The lawsuit filed in a Savannah, Ga., federal court by state leaders in South Carolina and other states follows a trio of cases filed Monday by 18 other states.

EPA’s New Power Grab Includes Rain Water, says AMAC
Posted Friday, December 5, 2014 | By John Grimaldi

‘The agency seeks to expand the definition of the waterways it regulates to include puddles’

WASHINGTON, DC, Dec 5 – “Government has grown more aggressive as it seeks to trample on our rights with regulations that are so intrusive they are positively inane, including a new one that would give the EPA the right to regulate rain water,” according to Dan Weber, president of the Association of Mature American Citizens.

Weber said that he was not amused when the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would extend its authority under the Clean Water Act to include puddles.

“The Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972 to prevent the pollution of the nation’s navigable waters. It was not intended to allow the government to tell us how to deal with naturally occurring ditches on our property just because they might collect rainwater during a storm. But that’s exactly what the EPA proposes to do. It would be a joke if it wasn’t for the fact that such pervasive authority is bound to cause hardships for America’s farmers and for the country as a whole,” Weber explained.

Mark Pflugmacher operates a family farm in Champaign County, IL. He is also a member of the Champaign County Farm Bureau. As he put it in an OpEd article published in his local paper, The News-Gazette: “If the expanded definition is allowed, permits and other regulatory roadblocks — having to hire environmental consultants, for example — would stand in the way of conducting routine business activities like building fences, removing debris from ditches, spraying for weeds and insects, and removing unwanted vegetation on my own farm.

Pflugmacher cautioned that farmers are not the only businesses that will be impacted if the EPA is given the far-reaching authority it seeks. “Home builders, real estate agents, aggregate producers, manufacturers and contractors all would be affected. For these small, local businesses, the proposed rule would increase federal regulatory power over private property. The definitions would create confusion and, because they were intentionally created to be overly broad, could be interpreted in whatever way the federal agencies see fit, costing business owners money and the local economy jobs.’

But I digress... Of course an avowed socialist agrees with taking away the right of Americans to land, and what to do with their lands...

edit on 15-2-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:48 PM

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It is a horrible overreach by the criminal Federal Government and the EPA. It is all part of removing the rights of private property ownership and the implementation of U.N. Agenda 21.

I have stated in several posts to other op's that the overall objective is implementation of Agenda 21 with less than even moderate agreement in these previous posts. I'm glad I'm not the only person here that recognizes this opinion and see by the stars received for your post that it appears that more members agree with you and I on Agenda 21.

S&F for you.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 07:54 PM

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Metallicus

It is a horrible overreach by the criminal Federal Government and the EPA. It is all part of removing the rights of private property ownership and the implementation of U.N. Agenda 21.

You are right. This is to implement Agenda 21, the same one a lot of people claim doesn't exist. The Obama administration, and the EPA are trying to take all land, including private land under State control.

These farmers have a median net income of $45,000 a year. They don't have the unlimited amount of money the Obama administration and the EPA have. For how long can farmers fight this?

Welcome to socialism.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 08:03 PM
It's hard to comment because I do not know the conditions of these farms. Is manure being piled on a hill with a river directly downhill from it? Are they storing manure on flood plains?
If it's causing algae blooms a fertlizer restriction would seem like common sense.

Some pollutions is always going to happen with farms. I do wonder if we'll ever hit that limit where enough is enough.

Construction has gotten quite ridiculous with these regs as well. I often see silt fence uphill of a jobsite meaning it does nothing. wasted added cost. I am a certified storm water operator, had to learn and have to deal with some these regs.
tommorrow I may grab my giant binder from work and help clarify if something comes up.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 08:07 PM
a reply to: CharlesT

This is part of Agenda 21 as well.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 08:23 PM
Every single time the government has taken over any land, it destroys the land so no one can use it anymore.

They take over public lands under the guise of " we will take care of it"

And they take care of it to make sure no one else ever even wants the land again because they do not care for it at all. They fence it all off, but signs up forbidding entry, and off to seed the land doth go.

Unless you are Harry Reid's relative, then they are just commandeering it to give it to someone more privileged than the prior caretaker who is always deemed unworthy.

The EPA needs to be totally disbanded and shut down and all its principles barred from any like positions in the future and a new responsible agency run by the people and not some pigheaded bureaucrats should take it's place.

It is wishful thinking though, as long as people as corrupt as what are currently pulling the strings are in positions to do so. Root them all out and shut them down hard. Only a political outsider can pull it off.

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 08:56 PM
a reply to: jellyrev

I posted some examples of farmers who have been hit by this redefinition of the Clean Water act. Farmers always try to better their land, and their water, at least if they want good harvests, and for their animals to drink clean water. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule.
But this new "redefinition" is overreaching. It includes anywhere where it rains, or where snow may melt and sip into the ground, or into streams residues of dung from animals or fertilizer needed in farms.

Read the last post I made and you will find some examples of ranchers being fined, one is being fined $16 million, for improving their land and their water...

This is nothing but an excuse to overburden farmers. Many will go bankrupt because of this, others will have to completely shut down their farms, because the Obama administration, and the FDA want this land.

edit on 15-2-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in