Posted on 06/01/2006 5:09:09 PM PDT by beyondashadow
Definitions abound on what a wetland is, but none of them I've seen is so restrictive as "a swamp." The requirements I've seen are 10, in some cases 14, consecutive days of standing water on the land -- it doesn't have to be observed, either -- estimated is fine -- even just presence of certain flora can make land into a wetland.
My sister has been barred from farming about 20 acres of land because someone blocked (illegally) the free flow of water into some wetlands. In fact, she isn't allowed to sell it because it will all be considered wetlands and flood plain. Of course, it has never been flooded, they have shown the feds the water dam and the feds said it didn't exist. The 'dozer that created it is still sitting there after 20 years.
This is a classic example of one bureaucracy sticking it to another bureaucracy, both with powers of eminent domain, and a private taxpayer loses... It make no sense, and is larceny in any other context.
That the hapless private owner happens to own the perfect land with which to offset the wetland that the DOT is destroying elsewhere is irrelevant. It's still a criminal act.
Reminds me of an old cartoon about a letter which said, The IRS has lost your 1997 income tax return; if it is not found within 30 days, you are subject to a $10,000 fine, 2 years in jail, or both..."
The fascist federal bureaucrats are completely ignoring USSC decisions and are arbitrarily writing new (and illegal) rules in violation of these court decisions. Your sister may be a victim. These goosestepping federal eco-fascists try to "snow job" victims with new rules and then wear them down by citing numerous violations of non-existent federal laws.
Check out SWANCC.
Also keep your eye on US v Rapanos and the laughable "migratory molecule rule." Should be a decision coming down shortly.
You do realize that you no longer have the right to fill in the one you created? Just allowing one season of "wetlands"-related growth and you're screwed...
Please tell us about the "migratory molecule rule". I an truly intrigued.
I meant buy at the owners price if she wants to sell.
I wouldn't mind selling my house to the county at the price they appraise it at:')
"Should be a decision coming down shortly"
I hope so. I am a lawyer but I can't get anyone in that part of the country with the nads to take on the feds. My health isn't worth a darn and my sis isn't gonna spend a dime. She has given up as have most of the farmers in that area.
Maybe we should all stand up for the guy losing his land so he doesn't lose it. We ARE the government you know, not the environmentalist bureaucrats who hate human beings. This crap only happens because as a country we have lost touch with our founding principles.
Take that dozer and reclaim some ground where some stupid government buildings stand.
I'll admit my response was somewhat sarcastic - I agree that certain areas serve a useful purpose left in their natural state. I don't agree, however, with the idea of taking someone's land and converting it to "wetlands" as a trade off for something that was done elsewhere and not by the landowner.
The fascist bureaucrats in the Rapanos case (a farmer in Michigan who wished to develop his land) tried to nail him for violating the clean water act by writing the "migratory molecule rule."
He filled a few ditches and bureaurats claimed that doing so fell under the federal navigable waterways laws. How so? The bureaucrats said water in ditches, though not connected to any navigable waterway, could one day be absorbed by the sun, form into clouds and fall as rain into waterways controlled by the federal government. And so was born the "migratory molecule rule," meaning the federal government had control of all water everywhere, in any amount, because it could one day float an aircraft carrier in a waterway.
Naturally this was nothing more than a stupid attempt by a bunch of left wing bureaucrats to do an end-run around SWANCC.
About 3 years ago the USSC specifically told these Marxist thugs to stop persecuting Rapanos and apply the SWANCC ruling to his case.
The fascist bureaucrats refused to follow the USSC order and invented the "migratory molecule rule."
The 6th circuit is involved in this farce, the EPA, the US attorney and other assorted left wingers in the federal government.
In my opinion we have extortion in the Rapanos case, trespassing, perjury, civil rights violations, attempted theft and probably a dozen other crimes.
I wish more lawyers were involved in property rights issues. America could use about 10,000 attorneys specializing in property law. It's an area of law where enterprising lawyers might make a bundle of money while also fighting against the fascist federal bureaucracy.
We have a new tool in the federal Data Quality Act to challenge the absurd junk science from the EPA, F&WS, BLM, etc. Plus I'd like to see lawyers file Qui Tam claims against these bureaucrat thieves after beating them over the head with the Data Quality Act.
Add it all togther and you're looking at billions in pay-outs. That would keep many, many attorneys and accountants smiling.
I can remember when draining a swamp was considered progress. Where I grew up they would talk about very large areas that were once swamps. They drained the swamps, built roads and let people settle the land. The dry land was very fertile, it fed the multitudes and provided very prosperous lives for the land owners. I guess that would be a criminal offense today.
...Did you see this?
And here we provincials thought Congress was supposed to make law.
BTTT
There's probably regulations against other things I do on my property but I don't let that stop me. I like my wetland, it is more valuable than the ditch it replaced. Perhaps you feel it detracts from the value of my property? Then you should also realize that I have very few zoning restrictions, most of my land is not viewable except from the air, and most potential buyers wouldn't care one way or the other.
Giving unelected bureaucrats the power to write law is designed to destroy the most basic tenet of a constitutional republic - that only elected representatives may write law.
The elected representative writes law and if the people are unhappy with the law, they can vote in new representation to write law they want.
The unaccountable bureaucrat writing law flips this concept on its head. With bureaucrats writing law, the people have no way to remove a bureaucrat writing bad law. This gives enormous power to grow government and create an unaccountable central government.
The unelected bureaucracy writing law is the soviet socialist model of governance. Unaccountable bureaucrats controlling the villages, towns, cities and regional areas of a state by writing arbitrary decrees is the primary trait of any totalitarian dictatorship.
And you're right - agencies illegally writing law is another gift from FDR the Marxist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.