Have you spoken to your neighbor about his intentions yet? Maybe it's just
temporary. You hate to start a fight over something that may be quite
innocent or a simple misunderstanding.

Joe
Recalling his two neighbors and the three year, two attorney standoff over
branches over the fence.



On 1/19/04 1:39 PM, "janet" wrote:

i have a two acre neighborhood pond partially fed by a spring that
flows into my pond. the pond is about 6 years old. my neighbor began
diverting the spring water away from the intake pipe to the pond. i
can't call the county today but was just wondering if anyone is aware
of laws of diverting water?



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

You really need to talk to a lawyer unfortunately. I'd call your department
of conservation first so so you can arm the lawyer with info and not have to
pay for it. Water laws are different all over the place.



"janet" wrote in message
om...
hi,
i have a two acre neighborhood pond partially fed by a spring that
flows into my pond. the pond is about 6 years old. my neighbor began
diverting the spring water away from the intake pipe to the pond. i
can't call the county today but was just wondering if anyone is aware
of laws of diverting water?
thanks!
janet

Have you spoken to your neighbor about his intentions yet? Maybe it's just
temporary. You hate to start a fight over something that may be quite
innocent or a simple misunderstanding.

Joe
Recalling his two neighbors and the three year, two attorney standoff over
branches over the fence.



On 1/19/04 1:39 PM, "janet" wrote:

i have a two acre neighborhood pond partially fed by a spring that
flows into my pond. the pond is about 6 years old. my neighbor began
diverting the spring water away from the intake pipe to the pond. i
can't call the county today but was just wondering if anyone is aware
of laws of diverting water?



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

D Kat wrote:

If you have an intake pipe, are you not diverting water as well? I don't
know how it is with this administration (have the rescinded all
environmental protections yet?) but at one time you had to go through the
EPA if you even thought about such things. DKat

Water rights are state jurisdiction, water channel changes, such as
making a pond under the described conditions is Army Corps of Engineers.

Considering that your lawn can be declared "wetlands" and under Army
Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as "Navigatable waterways" if rain or
melting snow causes the soil to be saturated, I certainly hope some of
the environmental protections get tossed out.

BTW, farmers have lost control of their fields, some under cultivation
for many years, because the soil was saturated during the spring. It's
little stretch to apply the same to lawns. (I'm still gloating about
the trapping laws mess in Washington State. The yuppies cannot trap
gophers or moles messing up their lawns, because of a law *they*
shoved down the throats of the farmers and trappers. The rural people
are refusing to budge on allowing a partial repeal unless it all goes.
They have the numbers to block it, when combined with the loony left.)

Laws and regulations have no relationship to sanity, nor do they need
to actually accomplish their proported purpose.

As an example, a farmer was notified he could not work his fields any
more, because an endangered kangaroo rat lived in those fields. He
stopped working them, the brush grew up and changed the habitat, and
the rats died out. They cannot survive in thick brush, and that
farmer's field was the only habitat for them in the area. Another
species a little closer to extinction due to foolishly written or
enforced laws.

Excuse me, but you punched one of my "hot buttons". I won't go into a
zinc mine sterilizing a river in Tennessee, or British Petroleum
getting a special deal on oil in the Elk Hills (an environmentally
sensitive area in SoCal), as both involve a prior administration.

This is in fact one of my hot button issues. As I said, I lived on a
mountain side that fed the water supply to the thousands of people in the
area. It was a hassle working around the issue of where we could put our
septic system but entirely understandable and I was more than willing to do
my part. If the bath water you are washing the baby in is dirty, you throw
out the bath water NOT the baby. Any system of law is going to have
injustices. You have to fix it, not give up on it.

Anything once it turns into a bureaucracy develops serious flaws. The idea
behind the laws is correct - if we don't take care of the earth, we in the
end will be the ones to suffer most. It is the implementation that has a
problem. Part of it is that people who end up being the ones that hold the
power either they don't care, they don't have the leeway or they don't have
the knowledge to make these things work. It is critical that we protect our
wetlands from human development. The majority of sea life begins in
estuaries. Our water is purified going through wetlands. It is one of the
riches habitats on the earth. Don't blame the protection of what all of us
need because of those making and implementing the laws.

I don't believe in public religious discussions but since this
administration is insisting on putting religion as something that belongs in
public I will say this. What most amazes me is those who claim to be
"people of G~d" who are happy to take a piece of art work of G~d and
graffiti it and putting their own creations above the worth of those of G~d.

As I said - a hotbutton topic for me so this is the last I will say on it.
DKat

"Offbreed" wrote in message
...
D Kat wrote:

If you have an intake pipe, are you not diverting water as well? I
don't
know how it is with this administration (have the rescinded all
environmental protections yet?) but at one time you had to go through
the
EPA if you even thought about such things. DKat

Water rights are state jurisdiction, water channel changes, such as
making a pond under the described conditions is Army Corps of Engineers.

Considering that your lawn can be declared "wetlands" and under Army
Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as "Navigatable waterways" if rain or
melting snow causes the soil to be saturated, I certainly hope some of
the environmental protections get tossed out.

BTW, farmers have lost control of their fields, some under cultivation
for many years, because the soil was saturated during the spring. It's
little stretch to apply the same to lawns. (I'm still gloating about
the trapping laws mess in Washington State. The yuppies cannot trap
gophers or moles messing up their lawns, because of a law *they*
shoved down the throats of the farmers and trappers. The rural people
are refusing to budge on allowing a partial repeal unless it all goes.
They have the numbers to block it, when combined with the loony left.)

Laws and regulations have no relationship to sanity, nor do they need
to actually accomplish their proported purpose.

As an example, a farmer was notified he could not work his fields any
more, because an endangered kangaroo rat lived in those fields. He
stopped working them, the brush grew up and changed the habitat, and
the rats died out. They cannot survive in thick brush, and that
farmer's field was the only habitat for them in the area. Another
species a little closer to extinction due to foolishly written or
enforced laws.

Excuse me, but you punched one of my "hot buttons". I won't go into a
zinc mine sterilizing a river in Tennessee, or British Petroleum
getting a special deal on oil in the Elk Hills (an environmentally
sensitive area in SoCal), as both involve a prior administration.

i am sorry but i have to ask... what is up with leaving the o out of god?
janet

"D Kat" wrote in message
...
This is in fact one of my hot button issues. As I said, I lived on a
mountain side that fed the water supply to the thousands of people in the
area. It was a hassle working around the issue of where we could put our
septic system but entirely understandable and I was more than willing to
do
my part. If the bath water you are washing the baby in is dirty, you
throw
out the bath water NOT the baby. Any system of law is going to have
injustices. You have to fix it, not give up on it.

Anything once it turns into a bureaucracy develops serious flaws. The
idea
behind the laws is correct - if we don't take care of the earth, we in the
end will be the ones to suffer most. It is the implementation that has a
problem. Part of it is that people who end up being the ones that hold
the
power either they don't care, they don't have the leeway or they don't
have
the knowledge to make these things work. It is critical that we protect
our
wetlands from human development. The majority of sea life begins in
estuaries. Our water is purified going through wetlands. It is one of
the
riches habitats on the earth. Don't blame the protection of what all of
us
need because of those making and implementing the laws.

I don't believe in public religious discussions but since this
administration is insisting on putting religion as something that belongs
in
public I will say this. What most amazes me is those who claim to be
"people of G~d" who are happy to take a piece of art work of G~d and
graffiti it and putting their own creations above the worth of those of
G~d.

As I said - a hotbutton topic for me so this is the last I will say on it.
DKat

"Offbreed" wrote in message
...
D Kat wrote:

If you have an intake pipe, are you not diverting water as well? I
don't
know how it is with this administration (have the rescinded all
environmental protections yet?) but at one time you had to go through
the
EPA if you even thought about such things. DKat

Water rights are state jurisdiction, water channel changes, such as
making a pond under the described conditions is Army Corps of Engineers.

Considering that your lawn can be declared "wetlands" and under Army
Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as "Navigatable waterways" if rain or
melting snow causes the soil to be saturated, I certainly hope some of
the environmental protections get tossed out.

BTW, farmers have lost control of their fields, some under cultivation
for many years, because the soil was saturated during the spring. It's
little stretch to apply the same to lawns. (I'm still gloating about
the trapping laws mess in Washington State. The yuppies cannot trap
gophers or moles messing up their lawns, because of a law *they*
shoved down the throats of the farmers and trappers. The rural people
are refusing to budge on allowing a partial repeal unless it all goes.
They have the numbers to block it, when combined with the loony left.)

Laws and regulations have no relationship to sanity, nor do they need
to actually accomplish their proported purpose.

As an example, a farmer was notified he could not work his fields any
more, because an endangered kangaroo rat lived in those fields. He
stopped working them, the brush grew up and changed the habitat, and
the rats died out. They cannot survive in thick brush, and that
farmer's field was the only habitat for them in the area. Another
species a little closer to extinction due to foolishly written or
enforced laws.

Excuse me, but you punched one of my "hot buttons". I won't go into a
zinc mine sterilizing a river in Tennessee, or British Petroleum
getting a special deal on oil in the Elk Hills (an environmentally
sensitive area in SoCal), as both involve a prior administration.

Well, this is a touch disjointed because I cut most of it, and have to
get a couple things done, off the net.

I think we agree on most basics, but not on who we trust. You trust
some, I don't trust anyone in politics. (They keep insisting on silly
stuff, like I can't keep a knife at someone's throat, just because
he's a politician.)

D Kat wrote:

Anything once it turns into a bureaucracy develops serious flaws. The idea
behind the laws is correct - if we don't take care of the earth, we in the
end will be the ones to suffer most. It is the implementation that has a
problem. Part of it is that people who end up being the ones that hold the
power either they don't care, they don't have the leeway or they don't have
the knowledge to make these things work.

I fully agree with every bit of the above. People also gain power by
claiming to be "the environmental candidate", when they are more
accurately called "the anti-environmental candidate". "The devil can
quote scripture for his own purposes."

Too many of the previous administration were (and are) simply riding
the "environmental horse" as a means of gaining power and wealth.
Trusting them is no wiser than trusting the present bunch, IMO.

I made a study of confidence games back a long time ago when I
realized I was falling for too many of them for my health. Most of the
"environmental" groups are demonstratibly long con's.

It is critical that we protect our
wetlands from human development. The majority of sea life begins in
estuaries. Our water is purified going through wetlands. It is one of the
riches habitats on the earth.

This gets into location. As an example, the entire state of Alaska can
be considered "wetlands", according to the definitions *needed* in
most of the US. Pretty much the whole darn state squishes underfoot,
unless it's frozen. It's a bit too much of a good thing, as several
diseases thrive under these conditions, and the wetlands here are
actually a major source of pollution to the streams. (shrug) most
people in the lower 48 don't realize this, and, well, they get told a
lot of lies by people who want power and money, and we end up with
laws that are a good laugh at best, destructive of the environment at
worst.

The *laws* might work in parts of the lower 48, or might not. A law or
regulation gets passed that is micromanagement proper for one place,
is applied to a huge number of other locations, and does harm in some
of them, as in Alaska.

The people who want the power and money tell the voters that the
people who actually live in the country want to destroy the
environment, but, who really wants to live in the midst of
environmental devastation? I don't miss a koi pond, because there is a
lovely, natural pool at the mouth of a ravine next to where I work.
It'd take a major fortune to manufacture something like that. Serene,
peacefully, a series of small waterfalls lead into it and out,
surrounded by tall hemlock, eagles and raven overhead, and occasional
mink or weasel bouncing past. The bowl faces the evening sun and is,
well, great. Okay, it would stand a few more fish, something other
than a handful of brook trout.

As I said - a hotbutton topic for me so this is the last I will say on it.
DKat

Believe it or not, we are pretty much on the same side in what results
we want.

Well, this is a touch disjointed because I cut most of it, and have to
get a couple things done, off the net.

I think we agree on most basics, but not on who we trust. You trust
some, I don't trust anyone in politics. (They keep insisting on silly
stuff, like I can't keep a knife at someone's throat, just because
he's a politician.)

D Kat wrote:

Anything once it turns into a bureaucracy develops serious flaws. The idea
behind the laws is correct - if we don't take care of the earth, we in the
end will be the ones to suffer most. It is the implementation that has a
problem. Part of it is that people who end up being the ones that hold the
power either they don't care, they don't have the leeway or they don't have
the knowledge to make these things work.

I fully agree with every bit of the above. People also gain power by
claiming to be "the environmental candidate", when they are more
accurately called "the anti-environmental candidate". "The devil can
quote scripture for his own purposes."

Too many of the previous administration were (and are) simply riding
the "environmental horse" as a means of gaining power and wealth.
Trusting them is no wiser than trusting the present bunch, IMO.

I made a study of confidence games back a long time ago when I
realized I was falling for too many of them for my health. Most of the
"environmental" groups are demonstratibly long con's.

It is critical that we protect our
wetlands from human development. The majority of sea life begins in
estuaries. Our water is purified going through wetlands. It is one of the
riches habitats on the earth.

This gets into location. As an example, the entire state of Alaska can
be considered "wetlands", according to the definitions *needed* in
most of the US. Pretty much the whole darn state squishes underfoot,
unless it's frozen. It's a bit too much of a good thing, as several
diseases thrive under these conditions, and the wetlands here are
actually a major source of pollution to the streams. (shrug) most
people in the lower 48 don't realize this, and, well, they get told a
lot of lies by people who want power and money, and we end up with
laws that are a good laugh at best, destructive of the environment at
worst.

The *laws* might work in parts of the lower 48, or might not. A law or
regulation gets passed that is micromanagement proper for one place,
is applied to a huge number of other locations, and does harm in some
of them, as in Alaska.

The people who want the power and money tell the voters that the
people who actually live in the country want to destroy the
environment, but, who really wants to live in the midst of
environmental devastation? I don't miss a koi pond, because there is a
lovely, natural pool at the mouth of a ravine next to where I work.
It'd take a major fortune to manufacture something like that. Serene,
peacefully, a series of small waterfalls lead into it and out,
surrounded by tall hemlock, eagles and raven overhead, and occasional
mink or weasel bouncing past. The bowl faces the evening sun and is,
well, great. Okay, it would stand a few more fish, something other
than a handful of brook trout.

As I said - a hotbutton topic for me so this is the last I will say on it.
DKat

Believe it or not, we are pretty much on the same side in what results
we want.

Well, this is a touch disjointed because I cut most of it, and have to
get a couple things done, off the net.

I think we agree on most basics, but not on who we trust. You trust
some, I don't trust anyone in politics. (They keep insisting on silly
stuff, like I can't keep a knife at someone's throat, just because
he's a politician.)

D Kat wrote:

Anything once it turns into a bureaucracy develops serious flaws. The idea
behind the laws is correct - if we don't take care of the earth, we in the
end will be the ones to suffer most. It is the implementation that has a
problem. Part of it is that people who end up being the ones that hold the
power either they don't care, they don't have the leeway or they don't have
the knowledge to make these things work.

I fully agree with every bit of the above. People also gain power by
claiming to be "the environmental candidate", when they are more
accurately called "the anti-environmental candidate". "The devil can
quote scripture for his own purposes."

Too many of the previous administration were (and are) simply riding
the "environmental horse" as a means of gaining power and wealth.
Trusting them is no wiser than trusting the present bunch, IMO.

I made a study of confidence games back a long time ago when I
realized I was falling for too many of them for my health. Most of the
"environmental" groups are demonstratibly long con's.

It is critical that we protect our
wetlands from human development. The majority of sea life begins in
estuaries. Our water is purified going through wetlands. It is one of the
riches habitats on the earth.

This gets into location. As an example, the entire state of Alaska can
be considered "wetlands", according to the definitions *needed* in
most of the US. Pretty much the whole darn state squishes underfoot,
unless it's frozen. It's a bit too much of a good thing, as several
diseases thrive under these conditions, and the wetlands here are
actually a major source of pollution to the streams. (shrug) most
people in the lower 48 don't realize this, and, well, they get told a
lot of lies by people who want power and money, and we end up with
laws that are a good laugh at best, destructive of the environment at
worst.

The *laws* might work in parts of the lower 48, or might not. A law or
regulation gets passed that is micromanagement proper for one place,
is applied to a huge number of other locations, and does harm in some
of them, as in Alaska.

The people who want the power and money tell the voters that the
people who actually live in the country want to destroy the
environment, but, who really wants to live in the midst of
environmental devastation? I don't miss a koi pond, because there is a
lovely, natural pool at the mouth of a ravine next to where I work.
It'd take a major fortune to manufacture something like that. Serene,
peacefully, a series of small waterfalls lead into it and out,
surrounded by tall hemlock, eagles and raven overhead, and occasional
mink or weasel bouncing past. The bowl faces the evening sun and is,
well, great. Okay, it would stand a few more fish, something other
than a handful of brook trout.

As I said - a hotbutton topic for me so this is the last I will say on it.
DKat

Believe it or not, we are pretty much on the same side in what results
we want.

Well, this is a touch disjointed because I cut most of it, and have to
get a couple things done, off the net.

I think we agree on most basics, but not on who we trust. You trust
some, I don't trust anyone in politics. (They keep insisting on silly
stuff, like I can't keep a knife at someone's throat, just because
he's a politician.)

D Kat wrote:

Anything once it turns into a bureaucracy develops serious flaws. The idea
behind the laws is correct - if we don't take care of the earth, we in the
end will be the ones to suffer most. It is the implementation that has a
problem. Part of it is that people who end up being the ones that hold the
power either they don't care, they don't have the leeway or they don't have
the knowledge to make these things work.

I fully agree with every bit of the above. People also gain power by
claiming to be "the environmental candidate", when they are more
accurately called "the anti-environmental candidate". "The devil can
quote scripture for his own purposes."

Too many of the previous administration were (and are) simply riding
the "environmental horse" as a means of gaining power and wealth.
Trusting them is no wiser than trusting the present bunch, IMO.

I made a study of confidence games back a long time ago when I
realized I was falling for too many of them for my health. Most of the
"environmental" groups are demonstratibly long con's.

It is critical that we protect our
wetlands from human development. The majority of sea life begins in
estuaries. Our water is purified going through wetlands. It is one of the
riches habitats on the earth.

This gets into location. As an example, the entire state of Alaska can
be considered "wetlands", according to the definitions *needed* in
most of the US. Pretty much the whole darn state squishes underfoot,
unless it's frozen. It's a bit too much of a good thing, as several
diseases thrive under these conditions, and the wetlands here are
actually a major source of pollution to the streams. (shrug) most
people in the lower 48 don't realize this, and, well, they get told a
lot of lies by people who want power and money, and we end up with
laws that are a good laugh at best, destructive of the environment at
worst.

The *laws* might work in parts of the lower 48, or might not. A law or
regulation gets passed that is micromanagement proper for one place,
is applied to a huge number of other locations, and does harm in some
of them, as in Alaska.

The people who want the power and money tell the voters that the
people who actually live in the country want to destroy the
environment, but, who really wants to live in the midst of
environmental devastation? I don't miss a koi pond, because there is a
lovely, natural pool at the mouth of a ravine next to where I work.
It'd take a major fortune to manufacture something like that. Serene,
peacefully, a series of small waterfalls lead into it and out,
surrounded by tall hemlock, eagles and raven overhead, and occasional
mink or weasel bouncing past. The bowl faces the evening sun and is,
well, great. Okay, it would stand a few more fish, something other
than a handful of brook trout.

As I said - a hotbutton topic for me so this is the last I will say on it.
DKat

Believe it or not, we are pretty much on the same side in what results
we want.