How the EPA separates landowners from their properties

This is an excellent article about Endangered Species Act (ESA) and how water plays a big roll in what EPA is doing. BLM is employing thes very same techniques. All of these same techniques have been being use by Land Trusts and ecology groups all across the west.

http://ppjg.me/2014/08/26/how-the-epa-separates-landowners-from-their-properties/

The PPJ Gazette

strip banner
new-logo25W. R. McAfee

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On April 7, 2001, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ignored state and federal law in the name of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and stopped water to more than 200,000 acres and some 1,400 canal-irrigated family farms near Klamath Falls, Oregon, plunging the community toward bankruptcy and devastating families.
Why? Because the bureau said two species of bottom-feeding suckerfish and a Coho salmon, in a reservoir the farmers depended upon might be “affected” if water was released during the current drought.

35600_1thmThe ESA had already been used to cut off water to a group of California farmers, causing their crops to dry up.
In Colorado, the forest service threatened another agricultural operation with a by-pass flow that would have resulted in an 80-percent loss of the dry-year water supply from a key reservoir, with a direct economic loss of between $5 and $17 million.
They also…

View original post 2,015 more words

Advertisements

100 year flood plain…

How many people know what the 100 year flood plain is? Do you know where your hundred year flood plain boundaries are? FEMA utilizes these zones to identify the flood plain for flood insurance. The boundaries are also used to identify wetlands.

Wetlands are not always defined by an individual interpretation of a wet area that stays wet year round. It can be defined by an area that has standing water for a time. It can be defined by an area that is flooded during a freshet. The floodplain defined by a sudden flood can be used in the 100 year floodplain definition.

This kind of definition does not make any sense to you or I, the common person, owning land or observing nature. Yet the EPA defines it this way. The following is an excerpt from the “Economic Analysis of Proposed Revised Definition of Waters of the United States” It is from page 9:

One category of benefits includes goods and services that a proposed action or activity One category of benefits includes goods and services that a proposed action or activity generates. Although potentially easier to identify than other categories, these benefits may or may not be easy to measure or ascribe value. In terms of protecting waters, an example benefit might be supporting fish and shellfish populations in downstream waters as well as protecting the waters themselves. Ponds, streams, and wetlands provide habitat for a robust and diverse assemblage of organisms that are necessary to support the whole aquatic community structure and ecological function. Some associated attributes may have market value (such as the fish themselves) and some may have non-market value (such as biodiversity).
Benefits also include costs avoided. Costs avoided represent what you don’t have to pay because of the action you have taken. For example, floodplain preservation prevents costly damage from frequent flooding. Although dams and levees are built to control potential flooding,altering the natural hydro-logic regime contributes to the potential for flooding. Waters affected by this proposed rule store water and slow down its movement across the landscape. When these systems no longer perform this function, the potential losses from flooding may increase.
You will notice that emphasis has been put on market value and cost. This cost is not only to EPA for permitting but also monitoring of the public once a permit is given. Then of course with Agenda-21 the American people will have to have their profits monitored by EPA as well.
In the case of wetlands the 100 floodplain can change dramatically depending upon what organization you are talking to. If it is an NGO then the zone has one set of boundaries. If you are talking to big corporation that can throw money at development the boundaries look very different. If you talk to FEMA (a GO) the boundaries look again very different. Each set of boundaries will be set to support each organizations objective.
 An example of this type of boundary definition comes into play in many land sales or building permits. One example is a private citizen has a perfect piece of property. A big corporation comes in and talks big money to said private citizen. Private citizen chooses not to sell the land. All of a sudden the land is worthless, because it has been defined as wetlands. It wasn’t defined before but now that private ownership is enjoyed by said owner.  The land is now wetlands and wetlands should be protected, after all. This now means private owner cannot develop his/her own land. The corporation now swoops in and says, we’ll take that worthless wetland off your hands. Land owner throws up his hands and says okay we’ll cut our losses. Said corporation buys low and then sells high or proceeds to develop the land any way they want.
The corporation then buys into a wetlands bank, to mitigate the wetlands they are now developing. In some cases these corporations eminent domain the property. Just compensation is paid to the owner, sometimes.
In all cases of wetlands the EPA will be the monitoring agency, they will be the defining agency and will be the controlling agency.
grays bridge wet

This is wet!!!!

This is dry!!!

This is dry!!!

EPA is taking every drop of water under EPA control and Army Corps of Engineer control. This is no more prevalent than the latest EPA move to define a puddle as something that should be defined as wetlands. It also is prevalent in the rain tax in Maryland and Illinois.

Weighing in on Rick Perry…

I find it very interesting that Rick Perry is the first politician who has said “NO” to a government official who is not ethically, morally and “of sound mind” to carry on their job. Texans should be proud of Governor Perry. He has enough gumption to put a stop to giving tons of money to an organization that is led by some one who think they are above the law and untouchable to accountability.

The ironic part about this situation is that the “Drunk Driver” is in charge of the “Public Integrity Unit”.

Definition of Integrity taken from Dictionary.com
noun
1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.
3. a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship’s hull.

What type of integrity did the DA show? The DA did not show any moral or ethical responsibility when she got behind the wheel of a dangerous weapon. She showed the poor, poor judgment when driving completely tanked. Obviously this is not the first time the DA “District Attorney”has gotten behind the wheel in this condition. This is just the first time she has been caught. It is a well-known fact that someone who drinks is impaired. The decisions they make are irresponsible, sometimes immoral and often unethical. he same people in power will be the ones who like to encourage others not to drink. They will talk to teenagers about the life changing poor choices that are made when drinking. These are the same people who see rules and laws are for everyone else but they do not apply to themselves. This is a serious hypocrisy The fact that this is a district attorney making the idiotic choices that she is making shows she dos not have the appropriate judgment to operate the “Public Integrity Unit”. A group that primary investigates fraud.
If Governor Perry did not put a halt to funding a unit that is led by such an irresponsible person the money would be used in inappropriate ways with lots of waste.
The decisions of Governor Perry are not politically correct. Governor Perry is not bending to the entitled bunch who hide behind political correctness and will use lies to bend public opinion by “Political Correctness”
The people of Texas should be proud of their Governor, someone who is in politics, someone who showed the ba*** to say “NO” to an irresponsible politician who has shown that they do not have the integrity to run such an important unit in the state of Texas.  The truth is the truth and that cannot be changed by people who think they above the law that they are put in charged enforce.