Don't know whether to be mad or afraid

[reefraff]

Couple buys a lot in a subdivision that has sewer and water hookups. Couple buys building permit, couple starts building, EPA issues stop work order and tells owners to restore native plants and fence the lot for 3 to "restore the wetlands". The lot has no running water on it, is 500 feet from the lake AND ISN'T LISTED IN THE WETLANDS REGISTRY. But the courts rule the almighty EPA can't be challenged in court, and this was BEFORE 0bama filled it with his goons.
http://www.pacificlegal.org/page.aspx?pid=1697

 

[stdreb27]

gotta love the 9th circus... Oh you're not harmed yet, because you could still get permission, never mind it will cost you thousands to even try...

 

[reefraff]

You have to spend thousands to get permission from an agency with no authority over the property or actions in question. What I love is the city/county issued a building permit but Egominiacle Pinhead Association is fining the homeowner. I've always scoffed at the notion the EPA needs to be dissolved and started over from scratch because it was screwed up beyond all hope. I think I might have been wrong.

 

[mantisman51]

The Federal government has been screwing with Idaho/Idahoans since the 70's-I'm not sure why. Every agency has dozens of horror stories just like this one somewhere in Idaho. Now you can see a little of my "paranoia" of new government power. Here's another beauty: In 1995 the Feds told a rancher his grazing rights were being terminated because of the damage to a riparian area in the Owyhee Mountains. There was no stream or creek within 10 miles of the ground in question and when asked what native species were at risk, the EPA and Fish and Wildlife said "brown trout". The brown trout were introduced there in the early 1900's and were not native to the area where there was water, which was more than 10 miles away. Then after 2 years of litigation, they pulled that "the trail to the grazing land" was the problem. Oh the trail South of the grazing land, while the stream was 10 miles NORTH of the grazing land. The court eventually ruled that he could graze, but had to keep his cattle off the stream that was 10 miles away. Here's the kicker: The woman chosen by Clinton to become the director of BLM for the area was a director of the Sierra Project and had been filmed saying all cattle would be removed from federal land under her jurisdiction with or without hearings. I won't get started on the ATF in Idaho. Let's just say the vast majority of Idahoans see the ATF down there with the Taliban.

 

[reefraff]

Water rights can be fun too. My brother has acres on a tributary of the colorado river which means towns along to Colorado would like to buy his water rights, meaning they are valuable. I don't remember if it was the country or state but he received notice that because he hadn't exercised his water rights, he hadn't irrigated his land, in a certain period of time they would revert back to the government.
My brother went to the water board and told them he was going to file suite because when they widened the state highway the irrigation ditch that led to his property had been removed, thus denying use of his legal water right. Suddenly they discovered a new found enlightenment and granted him a permanent waiver removing his use it or lose provision.

 

[mantisman51]

Yeah, there's another big one in Idaho. Back in the early 90's it was determined more water flow was needed to flush the salmon fry down the river, so the Bureau of Reclamation decided they had the unwritten and unprecedented right to take half of all us farmers water rights for the fish. It was a "temporary" emergency measure in 1992. The emergency still hasn't ended(?) and the farmers still only get half their water.

 

[reefraff]

Might agree with that. I'd rather eat Salmon than veggies. Unless of course those were hops or barley farmers

 

[mantisman51]

Actually Wilder, Idaho produces more hops than anywhere else in the U.S. But either way the government had no Constitutional authority to steal water granted to a citizen. Thus the phrase "water RIGHTS".

 

[ibew41]

my sister has 9 acres and they are considered wetlands because in the spring they are saturated and are able to grow plants that are in the epa's scope as wetlands.The rest of the year they are mostly dry

 

[reefraff]

Is the EPA violating your sister's constitutional rights as well?
I mean if you buy the land and it's listed as a wetlands or whatever I could sort of see it although I personally don't think the feds have the right to lay down that restriction on land they don't own. Buying a residential lot that already has sewer and water mains and isn't even in the wetlands registry and having the EPA pull this is absurd.

 

[mantisman51]

It's really funny, in 2000 the Feds had got so bad with the EPA, Fish and Wildlife, BLM, Forest Service and ATF, that our Governor told the Feds if another Idaho citizen was hassled he would ban the Federal agents from carrying firearms in the state. And by Idaho's constitution, he could. The last straw was when 2 Federal Fish and Wildlife agents pulled a guy out of his truck at gunpoint for driving down a dirt road that THEY determined was too sensitive for wildlife to allow a person to drive on it. Mind you, it was a county road and there was not, nor has been since, any restrictions for driving on it. They just were trying to show they could do what they wanted. Give the Federal government any new authority and there WILL be bureaucrats abusing it-that's a guarantee, not a paranoid guess.

 

[reefraff]

I saw a story about a lake they want to shut boating down on up there. It's a man made reservoir and they want to shut down the boating because of a duck Idaho claims isn't even a native species.
I've lived in Arizona, Northern Idaho and Montana and spent a lot of time in Wyoming. A lot of people think Montana and Arizona is the wild west because of some high profile cases they've had. I'll tell you what, Idahoans take a back seat to nobody when it comes to asserting their constitutional rights. They just aren't stupid and make a big show of it. I sure wouldn't want to be the one telling them they can't use their land. Try that in parts of Wyoming and you wont be heard of again.

 

[ironeagle2006]

Ask any OtTR driver Former or Current how OUT OF CONTROL the EPA or any ENVIROMENTALIST is when it comes tyo someo of the BS they pull. 11 Years ago when I was driving OTR trucks you know Semis would get as an Avarage over 7 MPGS while going down the Road while weighing 80K lbs. The EPA upset that the Engine Manufactors had a so called Fuel Economy setting that kicked in when the Cruise control was engaged at higway speeds but produced 1% more CO2 than allowed went FREAKING NUTS. They mandated a 90% REDUCTION in all EMISSIONS by 2010 a 50% by 2007 required DPF on all trucks by 2007. Now here is where it gets Bad for the EPA the amounts that were reduced came to about 2% CO2 1%CO 1%NOX and 2% less Particvulates. That is Below what we Produced in 2000.
Now in 2002 the Epa sped up the timeline further and demanded a 25% reduction by 2005 the Engine companies had to panic and come up with EGR in less than 3 years to meet it. They made it BUT LOST 33% of their FUEL ECONOMY. So we started to Burn MORE FUEL to haul the same amount of weight down the road. Then because the Devolp[ment was beyond rushed the engines were unrielable think Chevy Vega in area. When Engines used to get 1 million miles Before needing an Overhaul the industry is lucky to get 500-600K before they need to Overhaul the same Motors now with the EPA Emissions on it. They also did the Same thing to the Railroads and they are now having the Same Problems the Older Engines will not stop running the New ones are always in the SHOP with Problems.