Feds stop calling dry land 'water'

World Net Daily ^ | 3/11/2013 | Bob Unruh

[rktman]

A lawsuit by a New Mexico couple whose dry, sandy homestead had been classified as a wetland by federal government regulators is being dropped after Washington agreed to stop mislabeling the land.

[rktman]

I've lived in New Mexico and it's pretty dang dry. Sadly, I had always known it was a "progressive" state even back in the '60's so we didn't retire there. Glad these folks can continue to live there now hopefully in peace.

[Darksheare]

After Washington agreed to stop mislabeling the land..
..bet they will continue to harass the family anyway.

[rktman]

You are probably correct. Any permits needed will somehow be misplaced, written in the wrong ink color, no “i’s” dotted or “t’s” crossed, not turned in at precisely noon, the person who handles that is on vacation....... Subtle ways of saying “We’ll teach you to mess with us”. Enjoy living on “your” land. But hey, you didn’t work hard for that. Somebody else did that for you.

[Darksheare]

They do the same crap here in NY.
And if you are misfortunate enough to have a certain type of frog move onto your property and the find out, you can rest assured they will make attempts to seize your land and bulldoze your house to protect the ‘endangered’ frog that has made your property its habitat.

[rktman]

Shovel, meet froggy. Froggy, meet shovel.

[Darksheare]

Actually, the frogs aren’t too bad.
They keep the mosquito larva in check.
It’s the leeding heart enviros who wander onto private property that require the shovel.

[Cicero]

I knew a lawyer in Connecticut who won a lawsuit against the claim that someone couldn’t build a dirt road into their house because a short-lived mudpuddle was declared a “wetland.” I think the town ended up paying more than a million.

Once someone mentions the word “wetland,” this stuff can get crazy.

[Gay State Conservative]

Good start...now when will the Feds stop classifying military veterans as domestic terrorists?

[CedarDave]

For years the Feds have been trying to label all tributaries to rivers as a "water of the US." Originally the phrase, as used in the Clean Water Act was "navigable water" but small streams and creeks obviously weren't navigable. After the change, they tried to label even dry tributaries as a water of the US using the logic that a Noah-type flood would indeed result in water draining to a wet river.

As mentioned in the article:
In the Smith case, the couple was told by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that a dry creek bed on their land was a “water of the United States” and therefore subject to the Clean Water Act.

[US?] Attorneys were concerned the dispute could set a nationwide precedent for property owners’ right to challenge unsubstantiated allegations by regulators operating under the Clean Water Act.

So to avoid that possible outcome, the Feds dropped their complaint and the Smith's withdrew their lawsuit.

Bottom line is absent a court ruling in either party's favor, the Feds can again try to coerce some landowner to bow to their demands. Without vigilance and the support of groups like the Pacific Legal Foundation the Feds will continue to erode property owners rights guaranteed under the US Constituion.

[CedarDave]

NM list PING!

I may not PING for all New Mexico articles. To see New Mexico articles by topic click here: New Mexico Topics

To see NM articles by keyword, click here: New Mexico Keywords

To see the NM Message Page, click here: New Mexico Messages

(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for anyone to use. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)