[bohunr]

i wasn't sure what forum to put this one in, so here goes.

the PGC started the ball rolling on this one. 30 year court case, one million dollar in costs so far and two different rulings by two different Government agencies.

one said the farmer can and the other said the farmer can not. all because the farmer repaired some work done by his grandfather and then called the PGC because some beavers blocked it up. the guy was just doing what he thought was right all along and followed the law.

Erie Farmer Fights EPA Over Water Ruling | Main Edition | lancasterfarming.com


definite Government over reach

 

[Outbackbob48]

i wasn't sure what forum to put this one in, so here goes.

the PGC started the ball rolling on this one. 30 year court case, one million dollar in costs so far and two different rulings by two different Government agencies.

one said the farmer can and the other said the farmer can not. all because the farmer repaired some work done by his grandfather and then called the PGC because some beavers blocked it up. the guy was just doing what he thought was right all along and followed the law.

Erie Farmer Fights EPA Over Water Ruling | Main Edition | lancasterfarming.com


definite Government over reach

More to this story than meets the eye, chronic rule bender at the least.

 

[Marcus99]

I've heard of this story a few times. I don't know all the facts but it isn't exactly the Gov. sticking it to some poor farmer. As outback said, there is more to the story for sure.

 

[Outbackbob48]

I've heard of this story a few times. I don't know all the facts but it isn't exactly the Gov. sticking it to some poor farmer. As outback said, there is more to the story for sure.

Dang sure ain't no poor farmer.

 

[bohunr]

poor or not doesn't matter. they are and have been sticking it to him.

he followed directions from one agency and the other agency nailed him. why would that be allowed ?

fact is, its his land and all he did was fix something his grandfather did in the first place, nothing was intentional.

 

[TrailMan]

I'm rather familiar with the story, and there is much more to it. I have a much different take on whether intentional.

 

[Outbackbob48]

Traiman X 2,

 

[Vonfoust]

I'm rather familiar with the story, and there is much more to it. I have a much different take on whether intentional.

Well.....care to help the rest of us out?

 

[bohunr]

Inquiring minds want to know the "rest" of the story. apparently it didn't make the newspaper.

 

[Tony300wby]

I have no problem with the EPA doing their job, and the PGC officer should be commended on noticing the violation. Our country would be a mess if everyone was allowed to bulldoze over wet lands and alter stream flows anytime they wished.

Good luck, Tony

 

[bohunr]

he repaired what his grandfather did. he also asked permission from one agency and got the approval. then a different agency said the first agency was wrong and they went after him.

typical of Government. a home builder built 3 homes across the street from me. there is a small stream, creek, whatever running thru that section and the one lot had a small 50' x 100' pond on it with frogs and turtles.

somehow they got permission to fill it in and build there after altering the flow of that creek, rumor has it they never got permission, just did it.

if they did get permission, how was the builder able to completely make a wetlands pond disappear but a farmer can't repair some drainage on his own property with out the government going all gangster on him.

must be the cash for the permits. this type of stuff is all wrong. i stand by the farmer.

 

[Outbackbob48]

This battle has been going on for 40 yrs and at one time could have been settled for $5000.

 

[bohunr]

Principal matters more than cost.

 

[Vonfoust]

This battle has been going on for 40 yrs and at one time could have been settled for $5000.

I don't see how that would make it 'right'. keep in mind I know exactly as much about this story as this article, that's it. I was hoping you had something more than "Well if he would have just accepted the government steamrolling him awhile ago it would have cost less."

I don't have an opinion here because I always go back and forth between the preservation of natural habitat and landowners rights. This one seems bizarre so far.

 

[bohunr]

This battle has been going on for 40 yrs and at one time could have been settled for $5000.

it should have been settled between the two agencies that gave conflicting information to the landowner. he shouldn't be paying anything.