News

Farmer is Fined 3 Million Dollars For Plowing His Field

It is unfortunate that things have gotten this bad for our agriculture community. The ever creep of our government into agriculture has left some farmers completely out of business or scraping to make ends meet. In this particular case, the farmer is facing some very serious fines.

A farmer faces trial in federal court this summer and a $2.8 million fine for failing to get a permit to plow his field and plant wheat in Tehama County.

“We’re not going to produce much food under those kinds of regulations,” he said.

However, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller agreed with the Army Corps in a judgment issued in June 2016. A penalty trial, in which the U.S. Attorney’s Office asks for $2.8 million in civil penalties, is set for August.

The case began in 2012 when John Duarte, who owns Duarte Nursery near Modesto, bought 450 acres south of Red Bluff at Paskenta Road and Dusty Way west of Interstate 5.

According to Francois and court documents, Duarte planned to grow wheat there.

Because the property has numerous swales and wetlands, Duarte hired a consulting firm to map out areas on the property that were not to be plowed because they were part of the drainage for Coyote and Oat creeks and were considered “waters of the United States.”

Francois conceded that some of the wetlands were plowed, but they were not significantly damaged. He said the ground was plowed to a depth of 4 inches to 7 inches.

The Army did not claim Duarte violated the Endangered Species Act by destroying fairy shrimp or their habitat, Francois said.

The wheat was planted but not harvested because in February 2013 the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board issued orders to stop work at the site because Duarte had violated the Clean Water Act by not obtaining a permit to discharge dredged or fill material into seasonal wetlands considered waters of the United States.

Duarte sued the Army Corps and the state, alleging they violated his constitutional right of due process under the law by issuing the cease and desist orders without a hearing. The U.S. Attorney’s Office counter-sued Duarte Nursery to enforce the Clean Water Act violation.

Farmers plowing their fields are specifically exempt from the Clean Water Act rules forbidding discharging material into U.S. waters, Francois said.

However, according court documents filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sacramento, the tractor was not plowing the field. Rather, it was equipped with a ripper, with seven 36-inch ripper shanks that dug an average of 10 inches deep into the soil.

Also, the U.S. Attorney alleges, Duarte ripped portions of the property that included wetland areas.

The ripping deposited dirt into wetlands and streams on the property, in violation of the Clean Water Act, according to documents filed by the U.S. Attorney.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Broderick said he could not comment on the case and referred questions to his office’s public affairs department, which did not call back Monday.

However, documents filed in court explain some of the rationale behind the government’s case.

“Even under the farming exemption, a discharge of dredged or fill material incidental to the farming activities that impairs the flow of the waters of the United States still requires a permit, because it changes the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters,” the U.S. Attorney said in court filings.

The creeks also flow into the Sacramento River, home to endangered salmon.

In addition to civil penalties, the attorney’s office is also asking the judge to order Duarte to repair the damage to the wetlands, including smoothing out the soil and replanting native plants in the wetlands.

He may also be required to purchase other wetlands to compensate for the alleged damage to the property south of Red Bluff, according to the U.S. Attorney’s proposed penalties.

Francois said he thought the proposed penalties were unfair because his client thought the plowing exemption allowed him to till the soil.

“A plain reading of the rules says you don’t need a permit to do what he did,” Francois said. “How do you impose a multimillion penalty on someone for thinking the law says what it says.”

 

For more on this story read here

1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. John

    October 28, 2018 at 11:08 pm

    According to the plain sense reading and the intent of the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land (not opinion), the federal government has no legal jurisdiction whatsoever, directly or indirectly concerning agriculture, in all forms, and that blocks all actions by all three branches of the federal government to the contrary. Violations of the U.S. Constitution have been defined by writers and supporters of the Constitution as usurpations, capital crimes of the same level as treason, with the same penalties. Question: Is the United States of America to be a country under the rule of law, or the lawlessness of whim and decree?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

FDA Disclaimer

None of the statements on this website have been evaluated by Food and Drug Administration. The efficacy of any products or information has not been confirmed by FDA-approved research. The products mentioned are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
LocalGrowersConnection assumes no responsibility for the improper use of and self-diagnosis and/or treatment using these products or information.
Any information on the website is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and is not intended to be a substitute for a health care provider’s consultation.
Please consult a health care professional about potential interactions or other possible complications on any matter related to your health.

To Top