Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Hard to believe - I agree with a 9th Circuit Court decision

THAT doesn't happen very often!!

A feedlot owner near here was convicted of violating the Safe Drinking Water Act by dumping feedlot waste into the aquifer through several irrigation wells. He got a 4 year probation, a $5k fine, and was hit with $100k settlement on a variety of charges. He appealed but the 9th Circus upheld the decision.

Ninth Circuit Upholds Conviction of Burley Man
By Kimberlee Kruesi - kkruesimagicvalley.com | Posted: Thursday, October 6, 2011 1:15 am
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the 2009 jury conviction of Cory King for environmental violations in 2005.

King, 54, was convicted of four counts of injecting fluids into an underground aquifer without a permit, violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The appellate court also affirmed King�s conviction of making a false statement within the jurisdiction of the United States.

The court�s decision was released Monday.

King is the owner of a Burley-area feedlot. Two years ago, a jury heard evidence against King that showed he ordered workers to inject surface fluids into four irrigation wells on several occasions. King was also accused of lying to an Idaho State Department of Agriculture inspector who was inspecting the feedlot.

King was sentenced to three years of probation and a $5,000 fine. Separately, he and other defendants in a case pursued by state officials reached a $100,000 settlement on a range of alleged violations.

It�s not clear if King will try to further appeal his conviction. Calls to his attorneys Wednesday were not returned.

King�s case is one of the first successful prosecutions under the Safe Drinking Water Act in the United States, according to a press release from the U.S. Attorney�s Office for the District of Idaho. Monday�s decision was also the first from an appellate court to address the act�s constitutionality under the Commerce Clause.

The court decided that drinking water is an item of commerce that Congress can regulate to prevent contamination.

Finally, the court noted that �underground fluid injection can have disastrous consequences for drinking water and, in turn, for human health.�

Hence, a case for the EPA or some other regulatory agency. Same for food and drug regulations.

How could they NOT uphold it? Geez...

Y'all sure about that?

Amen Cheyenne, I see a lot of them unintended consequences in that.

How about taking a dump way up on a watershed in the mountains somewhere?

9th has to hit a blind squirrel thing on occasion. Very rare occasions.

What I was referring to was the finding the guy was guilty for his conduct...

Re: regulation of water - just look at the state of CA that dried up thousands of acres of irrigated farmland to save a few Chubs..

And the DNR here in this state sure as heck regulates the water. Can't drill a well w/o a DNR permit. Can't replace an existing road culvert w/o DNR permission. Can't FISH w/o DNR permission. Can't build a cabin on a lake w/o DNR permission..

And I'm just scratchin' the surface..

I understood what you meant. Sure the guy should be hung for doing such as he did. I agree with you there.
Problem is handing over too much power to the regulators as your list evidences.

Here in Texas we are just getting into the government regulated water big time. SO FAR the regulators have been told hands off private wells that are incapable of delivering a big amount of GPM water stream. I forget what the max allowable w/o a permit is but it is reasonable for a house hold or stock water.

You want to put in an irrigation well you got problems.

In Oregon they have discussed (but not yet implemented) putting water meters on privately owned wells and then charging the well owner for the water used.

Well, he can't be found guilty of a federal crime unless the feds had the right to regulate it in the first place and criminalize a violation of the regulation. So, agreeing with the federal conviction is an agreement with the fed's right to regulate. As you pointed out, there is a lot of state law regulation, and I suspect this person could have been convicted under state law as well, or in lieu of federal prosecution.

In Idaho, you can't water more than 1/2 acre from a domestic well. If you need more, you need a water right and these days, they're impossible to come by. Idaho has issued more rights than there is water to fill them. If you buy land, you'd better be darn sure there's an existing water right on it.

Part of his sentence should be he has to drink from those wells for a long time.

Montana used to have no clue, my buddy got hired by the state several years back cause the state decided we need an up to date figure on who owns what water rights and for how much water based on historic usage....Craigs been at it for 4 or 5 years and figures there is another 4 or 5 years before its done statewide....

like Idaho though when yah buy land you need to make sure the water rights get transferred cause they dont have to be, the seller can hold on to water rights just like they can the mineral rights....

Where water crosses state lines, surface or subsurface, wouldn't you want some level of federal regulation? A hypothetical example, the north-south continental divide is just north of here, about 20 miles south of the North Dakota border. Suppose a huge livestock confinement was built there, dumping sewage into the Red River headwaters. Wouldn't affect South Dakota one bit, it would all flow very quickly to North Dakota and Minnesota.

I suppose the states could duke it out, but multiply that across the 50 states. Would be a big mess.

Please note I wrote "some level of federal regulation," not necessarily what we have now. (!)

If the facts are as stated, the guy should have gotten substantial jail time. That's pretty egregious.

Injecting an aquifer is prima facie criminal. Blind pigs and acorns here.

There is some justification for regulation, but I don't see how the commerce clause should be stretched to include anything involving "drinking water." The Commerce Clause has been stretched too far over the past half century.

There are 2 things we all need and they need to be protected for the good of all of us; cllean water and clean air.

No doubt there, thought it had been stretched WAAAY too far when I first studied it 20-couple years ago. (Wickard is my favorite) The exceptions will have subsumed the rule entirely if Obama gets his way.

What I don't really understand is those wastes could have been converted in a variety of ways into a useable product. Sure, the dumbass would have had to invest some capital, but it would have been one heck of alot cheaper then the fines he incurred. Most importantly, he wouldn't have been breaking the law, polluting a natural resource, and incurring additional costs for treatment\prosecution. Doesn't make sense.