# Farm Bureau on wetlands



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

AFBF files brief asking for limits to Corps' jurisdiction
The Clean Water Act does not authorize the Corps of Engineers to regulate waters unless those waters are or could be actually navigable. The Corps does not have jurisdiction over all wetlands that eventually drain into navigable waters or that are close to navigable waters, contends the American Farm Bureau Federation in a friend-of-the-court brief filed today with the U.S. Supreme Court. (Hear the AFBF audio)

AFBF filed its brief in support of two Michigan landowners with wetlands on their property who have been denied the right to develop the property by the Corps or have been charged by federal authorities with civil enforcement actions for altering the wetlands.

"We filed the brief because our members are facing more and more regulations that limit their ability to farm," said AFBF President Bob Stallman.

"The extension of the Clean Water Act provisions to any water that drains into a creek or river that eventually reaches a navigable body of water is illegal intrusion into our members' rights and states' authority to govern land and water use. A prime example of overreaching is when the Corps extends jurisdiction over a dry ditch that is miles away from navigable waters and only occasionally carries storm water," Stallman said.

"Since enactment of the Clean Water Act over 30 years ago, the Corps has continuously sought to expand its regulation of private property beyond the original scope of the act," said Julie Anna Potts, AFBF's general counsel. "In deciding these two important cases, we hope the Court clarifies its 2001 ruling in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) and restores the original scope of the Clean Water Act."

The Corps and EPA defy the plain language of the CWA in their claim that Section 404 of the CWA gives them regulatory authority over all waters and wetlands close to or with a surface water connection to navigable waters, AFBF contends in its brief for the cases of John A. Rapanos, et al. v. United States of America and June Carabell, et al. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al.

"The Corps' claim to have jurisdiction over virtually any activity on any damp patch anywhere in the nation is squarely at odds with Congress' explicit goal in the CWA to preserve the traditional power of the states over land and water use," according to the AFBF brief.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

ttt


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Bob Kellam said:


> "The extension of the Clean Water Act provisions to any water that drains into a creek or river that eventually reaches a navigable body of water is illegal intrusion into our members' rights and states' authority to govern land and water use. A prime example of overreaching is when the Corps extends jurisdiction over a dry ditch that is miles away from navigable waters and only occasionally carries storm water," Stallman said.


The ironic part is that the corps will now have lots of new jurisdiction under this ruling...you can float a canoe down a drainage ditch right? :-?


----------



## oatsboy (Mar 29, 2005)

aaah,memmories,back to the days were i was niave enough as a land owner to think i actually have rights,this was ahot topic here 15 years ago,weve moved on now to phase II storm water controll with regulations on how much manure is allowed to go on any given field,the horrific violation of letting a pets excrement come in contact with rain, and the unforgivable crime of illegal pool emptying.
here our rigts have been replaced with ever so freindly sounding term 'it's a privilage which translates to if the government thinks you pass their terms than pay and proceed otherwise your out of luck and make way for the next guy.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Land rights and the responsibilities associated with them should be well thought out. The direction of society depends on it. I cannot understand the mind set of individuals who believe that the ownership of land gives complete sovereignty to do as one wishes. Some of you here would say that this is communist thinking. In fact it is just the opposite.

There are only two factors in the production of a product, land and labor.

If you as a landowner decide that you are going to produce a product using your land and labor. Then the cost of production should be fully reflected in its price. If the full cost is reflected in the price along with a return to the landowner then the market will decide whether A) they value the product enough to purchase it (through capital which they have created through their labor or land) at said price or B) do not view the product as valuable enough to purchase it.

In situation B the market will persuade (Adam Smith's "invisible hand") the landowner to use his land and labor in a way that will maximize his returns.

However, in many situations the landowner does not have to absorb the full cost of producing whatever he is producing on his land. Some other landowner is subsidising the production of that product. In this situation the market cannot properly signal to the landowner that he is using his land and labor in the most productive way.

I'll use a hog operation as an example. Let's say Joe Bob decides that he is going to build a hog operation that produces 5000 hogs per year. If Joe Bob has enough land or can contract with another landowner to spread the manure thinly enough that it does not cause groundwater pollution then his costs (if all of the other costs associated with the hog production are charged to him) will fully reflect the production of those hogs. Then the market by buying or not buying his hogs will tell him if he is maximizing the return on his land.

If however Joe Bob does pollute the groundwater then he has in fact infringed upon the right of another landowner and he owes them just compensation. If he does not have to pay to pollute then the adjacent landowner has subsidized the production of those hogs and the price does not fully reflect the cost of production and the market cannot correctly signal if the hogs are worth producing.

We first need to define the rights of landownership then we can let the capitalists run wild. Our laws are merely a reflection of what we view as landowner rights at a particular point in time.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Well said Gandergrinder,

I can only hope for the day when all externalilties will be figured into the costs of a product. Then, as you said, the market can decide which products/producers will see growth and which will fall by the wayside.

We certainly cannot continue on this path. Sustainable development needs to become a reality.

RC


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Jed.....Can you repeat the part about when you said all about that stuff!!!!??????? :lost:

Holy crap you gave me a headache with that post!!! :lol:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Great post Jed... a thought provoking read...

:beer:

Ryan


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

They day the government does not have a say in how Ag land should be managed is the same day the land owner no longer accepts a government subsidy. You can't take the government check and preach private land rights at the same time.


----------

