The Great Water Heist

Discussion in 'Congress' started by PixieStix, Oct 14, 2009.

  1. PixieStix
    Offline

    PixieStix Coal Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    14,511
    Thanks Received:
    4,972
    Trophy Points:
    370
    Ratings:
    +5,260
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. PixieStix
    Offline

    PixieStix Coal Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    14,511
    Thanks Received:
    4,972
    Trophy Points:
    370
    Ratings:
    +5,260
  3. Mr.Fitnah
    Offline

    Mr.Fitnah Dreamcrusher

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,480
    Thanks Received:
    2,673
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Paradise.
    Ratings:
    +2,673
    Its all about control Virginia.
     
  4. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,741
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +938
    We're already pretty far along down this path. Way back in 2005 I discovered the last of my land which I was planning to sell as a capital gain and use to draw from for my retirement was classed as part of the "Waters of Indiana"

    Even though it had no permanent stream, just a low lying ditch, beginning at the top of a hill which only had water in it in heavy rains, it was regulated environmentally. It was/is now classed part of the natural drainage pattern of the state though its maybe a mile from any permanent stream. The bottom of that ditch, which is nothing more than a low swale, has an environment of it’s own with established microbiology. It can only be disturbed by mitigation somewhere else.

    To sell my property, the buyer would have to protect that ditch by encompassing it with a "conservancy easement"

    To cross it with a public road (to be built at his own expense which is always the case) the buyer would have to find a similar environment on someone else’s property in a degraded state, convince that property owner to allow them to correct the deficiency and then allow a "conservancy easement" to be laid over that ditch to replace the one which they intended to disturb by putting a drainage pipe in it's bottom; but not an equal amount of ditch but multiples of the amount to be disturbed so as to improve the overall environmental situation; not just to replace it in equal amounts.

    Needless to say, not many buyers want property with so called "planning issues" like that laid over it, or to have to negotiate with a seperate property owner to be willing to impose the same state or affairs on their land. Because of the limited use permitted different from when I bought it in 1992, the value in my case dropped from $250K, the amount my original buyer offered in 2005, to only $100K which is what I got for it when it was finally sold as the site for a single home in 2008.

    I got one lucky break: Bush’s tax cuts made that net profit capital gain a tax free event.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2009
  5. Ringel05
    Online

    Ringel05 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    40,313
    Thanks Received:
    8,022
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    El Paso, TX
    Ratings:
    +17,456
    I'll definitely contact mine but a lot of good it will do, he's probably all for it.
     
  6. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,555
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,433
    I'm confused as to what the objection is to protecting the water supply....

    perhaps someone who's read the bill can tell me.
     
  7. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,741
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +938
    Jillian, Why don't you read the bill?
    There's a link to it in the OP.

    I find the same sort of language that I encountered in my own case in my post above: "The Waters of the United States" and "The Waters of Indiana," "Intermittent Streams" (read ditches there). The level of control this legislation establishes and exerts, though it sounds good and necessary, is just another case of 'ZERO TOLERANCE', and until that level of scrutiny impinges on your own life and your assets, you are sure to think it's a good thing; what could be wrong with protecting the water supply?

    Read my post above Jillian. A "momentary" disturbance of a ditch will not even create an erosion problem if overseen properly, but by experiencing firsthand the types of demands which they can impose, I'm able to see right through their fine intentions.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2009
  8. Mr.Fitnah
    Offline

    Mr.Fitnah Dreamcrusher

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,480
    Thanks Received:
    2,673
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Paradise.
    Ratings:
    +2,673
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oouHf0B9SB8[/ame]
     
  9. Mr.Fitnah
    Offline

    Mr.Fitnah Dreamcrusher

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,480
    Thanks Received:
    2,673
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Paradise.
    Ratings:
    +2,673
    They are going to put a federal tax on every flush of the toilet .
     
  10. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    Water wars will accelerate in intensity and instances over the next decade or so.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

content