- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
US Rep says EPA trying to control private property in US
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:41 pm
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:41 pm
LINK
By controlling the water. Sounds really like a tin hat deal but after "the emails are gone forever" and "it was a responses to a video" one can never be too sure what that bunch is lying about.
By controlling the water. Sounds really like a tin hat deal but after "the emails are gone forever" and "it was a responses to a video" one can never be too sure what that bunch is lying about.
11
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:44 pm to bamarep
Nope, not tin foil hat.
Very real issue that you can see coming if you deal with them often on this topic.
Very real issue that you can see coming if you deal with them often on this topic.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:46 pm to eng08
Unfortunately, I have much experience in dealing with the EPA from my years as a designer in the powersports business. They're just below their cohorts at the IRS IMO.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:47 pm to bamarep
quote:
By controlling the water.
Because the water flowing through a creek is the "private property" of the person who owns the land around it.
sure
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:48 pm to eng08
quote:
Very real issue that you can see coming if you deal with them often on this topic.
This. If you live in Louisiana, between the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA, your land ain't yours by a long shot.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:53 pm to kingbob
quote:And you could argue that if you're paying property tax then the same applies.
If you live in Louisiana, between the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA, your land ain't yours by a long shot.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:54 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Because the water flowing through a creek is the "private property" of the person who owns the land around it.
sure
You are missing the whole damn deal
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:54 pm to bamarep
To me, allowing rivers to be controlled by private persons is a problem. What happens if farmer jones decided to dam his portion, cutting off water supply for farmer smith?
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:54 pm to Rantavious
I'm not even going to try and explain it.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:54 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Because the water flowing through a creek is the "private property" of the person who owns the land around it.
As usual, talking out of your arse. The supreme court has already ruled on this.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 2:58 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
To me, allowing rivers to be controlled by private persons is a problem. What happens if farmer jones decided to dam his portion, cutting off water supply for farmer smith?
Farmer Smith can sue farmer Joe for damages due to Joe's actions that deviated the natural flow of water. These kinds of issues are what the civil tort system was made for.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:00 pm to bamarep
quote:
A top House Republican is charging that the Environmental Protection Agency secretly drafted highly detailed maps of U.S. waterways to set the stage for a controversial plan to expand regulatory power over streams and wetlands, a claim the EPA strongly denies.
quote:
Shown here is one of the many maps commissioned by the EPA to detail U.S. waterways.EPA:
The NHD? For realz?
And the USGS is complicit!
Super Secret NHD Download Site
Oh, oh, here's more:
Digital Line Graphs
Oops, I guess the Census Bureau has been in the business for quite a while as well:
Looks Like They Go As Far Back As 1992
Say It Isn't So, NOAA!
They Don't Get Any More Detailed Than This...
Oh my GOD, the government is producing open source geo-spatial data for us to add value to and sell on the open market at a profit !!!1! What in the world is the government doing with our tax money????/?
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:01 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
That's not the issue at all.
The biggest issue is EPA overstepping their authority. Think of it as mission creep on an exponential scale.
For example, say you want to build a house on some land you own. Sorry now that the EPA has increased their jurisdictional authority, you can not build there because there is a stream that connects.
The steam is only there when it rains, but since it eventually connects to a navigable river, then they can regulate.
In the past you just go to your county/parish and pull a permit (maybe).
These rules are more about controlling any and all development and requiring the developers to pay for impact of their developments. Essentially a money grab.
The biggest issue is EPA overstepping their authority. Think of it as mission creep on an exponential scale.
For example, say you want to build a house on some land you own. Sorry now that the EPA has increased their jurisdictional authority, you can not build there because there is a stream that connects.
The steam is only there when it rains, but since it eventually connects to a navigable river, then they can regulate.
In the past you just go to your county/parish and pull a permit (maybe).
These rules are more about controlling any and all development and requiring the developers to pay for impact of their developments. Essentially a money grab.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:05 pm to bamarep
Ummm.... unless you have that water bottled or barreled or in a silo or something the EPA has an understandable interest in it-- hell Louisiana of all states should get that-- If Missouri suddenly decides its cool with plants dumping nuclear waste in "their water" because said water only stays in Missouri for a days at most, you don't see why LA might want the EPA to look into that?
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:08 pm to bamarep
No shite.
Nothing new, but as with most things, it has gone into steroid-fueled overdrive under Obama.
Nothing new, but as with most things, it has gone into steroid-fueled overdrive under Obama.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:09 pm to kingbob
quote:
quote:
To me, allowing rivers to be controlled by private persons is a problem. What happens if farmer jones decided to dam his portion, cutting off water supply for farmer smith?
Farmer Smith can sue farmer Joe for damages due to Joe's actions that deviated the natural flow of water. These kinds of issues are what the civil tort system was made for.
The problem is that sometimes Farmer Joe is Archer Daniels Midland and spends more on lawyers than Farmer Joe has in land-- there's a reason the civil tort system can't always reign in major corporate malfeasance (not to mention the fact that the court system has been heavily stacked in favor of the corporations over the last few decades-- even beyond the obvious advantages they have in resources-- through things like election campaigns for Justices and tort reform/settlement caps).
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:10 pm to socraticsilence
quote:This is the problem.
For example, say you want to build a house on some land you own. Sorry now that the EPA has increased their jurisdictional authority, you can not build there because there is a stream that connects.
The steam is only there when it rains, but since it eventually connects to a navigable river, then they can regulate.
quote:This is not the problem. Huge difference in these 2 scenarios. One is dealing with private property, the other is dealing with what's in the best interest of the people.
If Missouri suddenly decides its cool with plants dumping nuclear waste in "their water" because said water only stays in Missouri for a days at most, you don't see why LA might want the EPA to look into that?
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:15 pm to bamarep
The Rapanos case really was a huge game changer.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:15 pm to dante
The EPA authority is only for "US Waters" which was defined and understood to be navigable us waterways. However due to recent supreme court rulings that definition has now been muddled.
The new rules are supposedly to clarify their jurisdiction. If everyone does not think they will try to grab as much power as they possibly can to control your delusional.
More areas/issues to rule over = more $ = more EPA bureaucrats.
The new rules are supposedly to clarify their jurisdiction. If everyone does not think they will try to grab as much power as they possibly can to control your delusional.
More areas/issues to rule over = more $ = more EPA bureaucrats.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 3:17 pm to eng08
It's the EPA in league with large real estate developers and conservation groups. They create all of this regulatory red tape that the small companies and ordinary landowners can't deal with. This forces people to use these large developers in order to get housing or commercial property. This drives the land prices down, allowing developers to buy land for cheap to develop. In order to develop these lands, the developers often have to pay money for mitigation or set aside land for conservation. This creates and supports dummy conservation non-profits in the name of "conservation".
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News