EPA biggest attemted land grab in history

[+OverSword]

As to the water courses, a better example would be, if a land owner decided to bury his car mechanic waste in the dried up creek bed because its a hollow which can be covered over simply because it is on his land and because it hasn't flooded for 20 years. When it floods again all of that toxic waste will be flushed out of his dump and will be transported down stream to multiple other land owners potentially causing adverse health effects or destroying their livelihood.

It is a perfect example of where the concept of absolute property rights is both a fiction and a bit ridiculous when you consider that no individual or location is an island which doesn't effect numerous other people.

Br Cornelius

Terrible example really as we already have laws in place to prevent people from burying waste. We don't need more laws, more regulations, and more beaurocracy, and more taxes to support more laws, regulations and beaurocracy.

Edited April 21, 2014 by OverSword

[Yamato]

biggest attempted land grab in the history of the world

since the Manifest Destiny, maybe.

[+OverSword]

Ahhh, the white man's burden. How could I forget?

[Yamato]

It would have been just fine if the red man did it, right.

As if, the federal govt wasn't behind that land grab too. But it was grabbing for the whites, not the turtles or the river beds, and that makes all the difference.

[+OverSword]

Even in the mid 70's my teachers were mocking that one.

[Yamato]

And now that the land grab isn't serving our interests, we're not laughing, and it's "the biggest land grab in the history of the world."

[Yamato]

So what bodies of water are covered by the Clean Water Act and which ones aren't? We don't even know?

So we don't know, and we don't care, and we'll just ignore the law that's already on the books and continue not knowing and not caring? What the hell kind of rule of law is that? If you don't like the law, take civil action and change the damned thing. Don't ignore it, and play self-righteous politics with it over the ignorance. I can hardly see how the Clean Water Act is okay but figuring out where and how to actually apply it isn't.

A valid argument would be "I'm against the Clean Water Act and this latest development shows why!" And yet the minute after some terrorist poisons the well, we'll run full speed behind the skirts of the federal government nut to butt.

[Guest]

So you are against clean water Yamato. You probably don't remember the Rivers running with raw sewage and chemicals before the clean water act was enacted - I do.

As I keep saying all you Libertarians let your ideology get in the way of common sense.

Br Cornelius

Edited April 22, 2014 by Guest

[Yamato]

So you are against clean water Yamato. You probably don't remember the Rivers running with raw sewage and chemicals before the clean water act was enacted - I do.

As I keep saying all you Libertarians let your ideology get in the way of common sense.

Br Cornelius

I'm not against clean water. I'm not even against the Clean Water Act that I'm aware of.

Here's the real kicker: I'm not a Libertarian. Damn, these labels. Let's just be individuals who share our ideas, at least some of the time, okay?

[Guest]

Here's the summery of this - you don't have the right to pollute even when its on your own land - and the EPA has the right to inspect your land to ensure that you are not polluting.

Simple.

Br Cornelius

[+OverSword]

Here's the summery of this - you don't have the right to pollute even when its on your own land - and the EPA has the right to inspect your land to ensure that you are not polluting.

Simple.

Br Cornelius

So should they have the right to tell you for example that you can't build a tool shed on a piece of land that has a stream bed that's been dry for over a century sighting the clean water act? Because that's what this is about. Every thing you've cited BR is already covered by existing laws and regulations.

[Guest]

So should they have the right to tell you for example that you can't build a tool shed on a piece of land that has a stream bed that's been dry for over a century sighting the clean water act? Because that's what this is about. Every thing you've cited BR is already covered by existing laws and regulations.

Yep they do - and it would be plain stupid for you to build it there because once a stream always a stream. Even if a land owner intends to be stupid and thinks he could get away with it - then in the future he wont have the freedom to be stupid.

There was obviously a flaw in the current legislation that allowed people to ignore it.

Br Cornelius

[+OverSword]

Yep they do - and it would be plain stupid for you to build it there because once a stream always a stream. Even if a land owner intends to be stupid and thinks he could get away with it - then in the future he wont have the freedom to be stupid.

There was obviously a flaw in the current legislation that allowed people to ignore it.

Br Cornelius

Wrong. Not once a stream always a stream. In fact for some of these not a stream for over 100 years. Streams are small paths of running water, incase you didn't know that. Edited April 22, 2014 by OverSword

[Guest]

Wrong. Not once a stream always a stream. In fact for some of these not a stream for over 100 years. Streams are small paths of running water, incase you didn't know that.

Whole rivers can shift course, but its not that common. Streams only move when the silt up and another stream opens up to replace it.

Unfortunately I believe you are hunting for the exception which disproves the general rule that many streams/rivers are intermittent - sometime for decades - but it is still foolish to build on them because there is a high probability that given the right conditions, such as a 20year flood, the stream will return.

Its like allowing people to build on flood plains because they only flood once every 20 years. STUPID and is currently costing the British government and insurance industry billions because of short sighted planning decisions.

Br Cornelius

[+OverSword]

Quite right, lets legislate human error or willingness to accept loss for gain (freedom of choice) out of the equation. I notice that the towns that were wiped out in the Japanese tsunami are all being rebuilt. Those same towns have been wiped out and rebuilt time and again. Why do you suppose they keep building them?

[aztek]

Whole rivers can shift course, but its not that common. Streams only move when the silt up and another stream opens up to replace it.

Unfortunately I believe you are hunting for the exception which disproves the general rule that many streams/rivers are intermittent - sometime for decades - but it is still foolish to build on them because there is a high probability that given the right conditions, such as a 20year flood, the stream will return.

Its like allowing people to build on flood plains because they only flood once every 20 years. STUPID and is currently costing the British government and insurance industry billions because of short sighted planning decisions.

Br Cornelius

you bought a house that was build 50 years ago, now epa sends you a letter saying your house is build on a waterway (there was a stream there 100 years ago, last time). by your logic, you have to move out and let them demolish it, and you will be paying for it. not to mention you still owe bank the moeny.

in case you come back with "it could not have been builld there if it was a stream there on papaer" lol it could money in right hands change zoning regulations in days, seen it my self. land developers do it quite often

Edited April 22, 2014 by aztek

[Yamato]

Here's the summery of this - you don't have the right to pollute even when its on your own land - and the EPA has the right to inspect your land to ensure that you are not polluting.

Simple.

Br Cornelius

Since everybody pollutes it's empty rhetoric claiming they "don't have a right" to. But the EPA inspects because they have the "right" to do that? The Fourth Amendment is an actual right and it limits this right of government. Failing to consent to a search has gotten plenty of inspectees out of trouble, even if they found the wrong flower that your beloved geniuses from gubmint forbid for some stupid reason.

[Guest]

you bought a house that was build 50 years ago, now epa sends you a letter saying your house is build on a waterway (there was a stream there 100 years ago, last time). by your logic, you have to move out and let them demolish it, and you will be paying for it. not to mention you still owe bank the moeny.

in case you come back with "it could not have been builld there if it was a stream there on papaer" lol it could money in right hands change zoning regulations in days, seen it my self. land developers do it quite often

That is not my logic and I am certain it is not what the legislation enables.

Br Cornelius