The dilemma is that drain plugs, water, vegetation has to been seen as high risk. While we know that under many circumstances it might be rain water, water from non-infested lakes, plant material that isn’t a AIS. How do you differentiate? It isn’t practical to have everything tested. So, it is assumed to be a violation.
The easy way around this, is to hand pick vegetation and clean of mud, pull the plug and drain all the water.
Guilty until proven innocent is a straw dog argument. If the law says pull the plug, and you don’t you’re in violation. If it says no plant material or water and you have some, you’re in violation. How can this be debated?
A straw dog is an idea, or plan, usually set up to be knocked down. It’s the dangerous proposition of presenting one mediocre idea, so that the listener will choose the better idea which follows.
It is also called a straw man. A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw-man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted. The problem is that you view the opposition from a very narrow, flawed perspective, and do not deal with the actual issues.
(This is something you frequently see politicians do–one that makes you know that no matter what they’re arguing, they are not even mentioning their actual agenda.)
Hummm 
