This is a good article from Dairy Herd Management on hiring 3rd party professionals- like an attorney:
http://www.dairyherd.com/dairy-news/Tips-for-Hiring-Third-Party-Professionals-275358611.html
Tag Archives: Livestock Water Quality
Waters of the US
Quick reminder to landowners, WOTUS (Waters of the US) is a land grab by the Feds. PLEASE comment! Comments are due this month. You can turn in as many as you want. We are hoping for 30,000 comments from WA. The NCBA has a format that makes commenting easy.
http://cqrcengage.com/beefusa/water
Wolf Shot in Whitman County
On Sunday, October 12, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Officers received reports from Whitman County that a wolf had been shot southwest of Pullman. When our officers reached the scene, they determined that the wolf had been shot by a farmer who had pursued the animal for several miles in his vehicle after seeing it near his farm.
The incident occurred west of U.S. Highway 195. This area is in the Eastern Washington recovery zone, where wolves are delisted under federal law but remain listed as endangered under state rule.
WDFW Officers contacted the farmer, and a witness who believed a possible poaching incident had occurred. The shooting does not appear to have been associated with a defense-of-life action, nor did it take place under the statutory authority to shoot and kill a wolf that is caught in the act of attacking livestock in the Eastern Washington recovery zone.
We are actively investigating this incident and are in contact with Whitman County law enforcement officials and the county commissioners. Once the investigation is complete, the case will be sent to the Whitman County Prosecutor’s office for a charging decision.
Lawsuit against Yakima Valley dairies expands
yakimaherald.com
A lawsuit alleging groundwater pollution by four Lower Valley dairies has expanded potential liability beyond the dairy corporations to related entities and individuals owning property used by the dairies. A federal judge Friday allowed environmentalists to add one individual and several companies as defendants in the case that accuses… the dairies of allowing cow manure to contaminate groundwater with nitrates, phosphorus, heavy metals and pharmaceuticals.
The dairies’ attorneys argued that the environmental groups waited too long to add new defendants and risked delaying the trial, but the judge disagreed, according to court documents.
“It is a bit frustrating that plaintiffs – particularly at this late stage of the proceedings – are continuing to make procedural moves that unnecessarily cause delay and increase costs,” Debora Kristensen, the Boise, Idaho, attorney who represents the dairies, said in an emailed response to questions Monday afternoon.
Mid-Year Conference
The Mid-Year Conference was excellent. My speech was well received and I had the opportunity to get a picture with my long time mentor, Mary Burke. Mary currently lives in OR but has been my mentor for many years. She was the first, and so far only, female Washington Cattlemen’s President, and is a self taught water historian. Aunt Mary has always encouraged me to pursue my dreams and to become an attorney.
Boundary Line Adjustments- the ins and outs
Many times neighbors realize that what they thought was there boundary line really isn’t. With modern technology, it is much easier for lay people, and surveyors, to find an accurate boundary line for a person’s property. The invention of GPS is both good and bad, you now know what you really have. The Courts have had to deal with this issue by coming up with rulings to figure out who the true owner of a property is. Adverse possession and acquiescence are two of the main theories to try and determine the legal boundaries of a person’s land. These theories deserve articles of their own and won’t be dealt with in this article. Many times a fence line or other monument is what all property owners thought was the property line and it isn’t. In the Columbia Basin, due to the fact that parcels are not round, many times an irrigation circle will go over the property line onto a neighbors piece of property. In dealing with this issue, legislators passes WAC 458-61A-109 to deal with boundary line adjustments. Boundary line adjustments are a method to make minor changes to existing property lines between two or more contiguous parcels, meaning that the parcels must be touching where the change occurs. A few examples of common boundary line adjustments are the following, which are used as examples in WAC 458-61A-109:
(i) Moving a property line to follow an existing fence line;
(ii) Moving a property line around a structure to meet required setbacks;
(iii) Moving a property line to remedy a boundary line dispute;
(iv) Moving a property line to adjust property size and/or shape for owner convenience; and
(v) Selling a small section of property to an adjacent property owner.
Boundary line adjustments can’t be used in every case. For example if you are in the county and your lot size is already the minimum required, unless the neighbor agrees to do a trade, it may not be the answer you are looking for to remedy a problem. Boundary line adjustments must follow the legal requirements for your area, such as your county, city, and/or state. There is usually a process, and most times a surveyor is strongly advised, if not required. Most areas also require a deed to transfer the property that must be filed with the Auditor. To work up that deed, you may need an attorney. The survey map and the deed must both be filed, and any easements, restrictions, covenants, etc that go with the property need to be spelled out on said documents.
Boundary line adjustments are an excellent tool that are oftentimes overlooked as a solution. Cheaper than a lawsuit, easier than a lawsuit, and the answer that may save your relationship with your neighbor.
This rule will impact anyone with property, so please comment
Once again the Federal government is trying to expand their jurisdiction, this time over waters and wetlands. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have published in the Federal Register a previously announced Proposed Rule to “… define ‘waters of the United States’ … for all sections of the Clean Water Act to mean: traditional navigable waters; interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; the territorial seas; impoundments of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, including interstate wetlands, the territorial seas, and tributaries, as defined, of such waters; tributaries, as defined, of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, or the territorial seas; and adjacent waters, including adjacent wetlands … Specifically, the proposed rule clarifies that under the Clean Water Act: … Most seasonal and rain-dependent streams are protected; Wetlands near rivers and streams are protected; Other types of waters may have more uncertain connections with downstream water and protection will be evaluated through a case specific analysis of whether the connection is or is not significant … The proposal requests comment on options protecting similarly situated waters in certain geographic areas or adding to the categories of waters protected without case specific analysis … The proposed rule preserves the Clean Water Act exemptions and exclusions for agriculture … The proposed rule will be open for public comment for 90 days from publication in the Federal Register. The interpretive rule for agricultural activities is effective immediately …” For anyone that is interested, that means it is time to comment to the Feds that this proposed rule is unacceptable. Expanding their jurisdiction means more laws to deal with and more ag ground out of production. Please take the time to comment. I am not an NCBA member, but they are going to have a comment link for this rule at beefusa.org it is not up as of this moment, but should be up in the next day or so. This rule will impact anyone with property, so please comment.
New Rules over waters and wetlands
Once again the Federal government is trying to expand their jurisdiction, this time over waters and wetlands. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have published in the Federal Register a previously announced Proposed Rule to “… define ‘waters of the United States’ … for all sections of the Clean Water Act to mean: traditional navigable waters; interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; the territorial seas; impoundments of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, including interstate wetlands, the territorial seas, and tributaries, as defined, of such waters; tributaries, as defined, of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, or the territorial seas; and adjacent waters, including adjacent wetlands … Specifically, the proposed rule clarifies that under the Clean Water Act: … Most seasonal and rain-dependent streams are protected; Wetlands near rivers and streams are protected; Other types of waters may have more uncertain connections with downstream water and protection will be evaluated through a case specific analysis of whether the connection is or is not significant … The proposal requests comment on options protecting similarly situated waters in certain geographic areas or adding to the categories of waters protected without case specific analysis … The proposed rule preserves the Clean Water Act exemptions and exclusions for agriculture … The proposed rule will be open for public comment for 90 days from publication in the Federal Register. The interpretive rule for agricultural activities is effective immediately …” For anyone that is interested, that means it is time to comment to the Feds that this proposed rule is unacceptable. Expanding their jurisdiction means more laws to deal with and more ag ground out of production. Please take the time to comment. I am not an NCBA member, but they are going to have a comment link for this rule at beefusa.org it is not up as of this moment, but should be up in the next day or so. This rule will impact anyone with property, so please comment.
In The News
Agriculture and Water Quality Advisory Committee
The first meeting for the Agriculture and Water Quality Advisory Committee with co-chairs Vic Stokes and Maia Bellon was March 19, 2014. The meeting was held at the DOE offices in Lacey, WA. There were 17 organizations present by representatives and many of the secondary representatives were also present in the audience. The audience was packed with interested parties who were only allowed limited interaction. I was there as the WCA Representative.
DOE also set up a link on their website for people to follow what is going on with the meetings and to know who attends as the representatives. Here is the link to that website:
I have a full article detailing what happened at the meeting coming out in the Ketch Pen.
Toni Meacham Attorney At Law 