|
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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 |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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know how it is with this administration (have the rescinded all environmental protections yet?)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 "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 |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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know how it is with this administration (have the rescinded all environmental protections yet?)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 "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 |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
There are two different sets of water law. One East and the other West.
West the people staked a claim on a certain amount of water, first come first served, and if you were second and the water level was low enough that it did not fill firsts claim, the water could not be taken, even if it runs through your property. East water law says you can dam it up, but you cannot divert it. It still has to go down the same stream that it would have gone down to start with. That law is routinely broken, in that cities take water from the up stream area of the river, divert it through the water treatment system, and it finds its way back into the stream at the sewage treatment facility, down stream. Is your neighbor diverting it around your pond, such that you don't get the benefit of the water? If so, then I would say you have a claim. Were you diverting it from its normal stream? If so, then you do not have a claim. Is he just slowing down the flow, by using part of it, or creating his own pond, but it finds itself back into the pond, through percolation, or once his pond is full? Then you do not have a claim. This is the way understand the water laws of the US, but my education on these is almost 40 years old. -- RichToyBox http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html "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 |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
when the pond was dug the water flow wasn't diverted. the water leaves the
pond and travels the same path in the same amount as it always has. "D Kat" wrote in message et... 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 "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 |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
the neighbor would be diverting it (for a pond i am assuming he intends to
dig) and the level of our pond level would drop. it's not so much a stream but a spring that flows from his property into ours. "RichToyBox" wrote in message news:q5_Ob.101991$xy6.189616@attbi_s02... There are two different sets of water law. One East and the other West. West the people staked a claim on a certain amount of water, first come first served, and if you were second and the water level was low enough that it did not fill firsts claim, the water could not be taken, even if it runs through your property. East water law says you can dam it up, but you cannot divert it. It still has to go down the same stream that it would have gone down to start with. That law is routinely broken, in that cities take water from the up stream area of the river, divert it through the water treatment system, and it finds its way back into the stream at the sewage treatment facility, down stream. Is your neighbor diverting it around your pond, such that you don't get the benefit of the water? If so, then I would say you have a claim. Were you diverting it from its normal stream? If so, then you do not have a claim. Is he just slowing down the flow, by using part of it, or creating his own pond, but it finds itself back into the pond, through percolation, or once his pond is full? Then you do not have a claim. This is the way understand the water laws of the US, but my education on these is almost 40 years old. -- RichToyBox http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html "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 |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
when the pond was dug the water flow wasn't diverted. the water leaves the
pond and travels the same path in the same amount as it always has. "D Kat" wrote in message et... 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 "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 |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
the neighbor would be diverting it (for a pond i am assuming he intends to
dig) and the level of our pond level would drop. it's not so much a stream but a spring that flows from his property into ours. "RichToyBox" wrote in message news:q5_Ob.101991$xy6.189616@attbi_s02... There are two different sets of water law. One East and the other West. West the people staked a claim on a certain amount of water, first come first served, and if you were second and the water level was low enough that it did not fill firsts claim, the water could not be taken, even if it runs through your property. East water law says you can dam it up, but you cannot divert it. It still has to go down the same stream that it would have gone down to start with. That law is routinely broken, in that cities take water from the up stream area of the river, divert it through the water treatment system, and it finds its way back into the stream at the sewage treatment facility, down stream. Is your neighbor diverting it around your pond, such that you don't get the benefit of the water? If so, then I would say you have a claim. Were you diverting it from its normal stream? If so, then you do not have a claim. Is he just slowing down the flow, by using part of it, or creating his own pond, but it finds itself back into the pond, through percolation, or once his pond is full? Then you do not have a claim. This is the way understand the water laws of the US, but my education on these is almost 40 years old. -- RichToyBox http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html "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 |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
My understanding of the issue is that your neighbor cannot stop the flow of
water that is currently going into your property. We lived on wetlands and could not do any development that would prevent the natural flow of the water. I also think that out west they were being sued by Mexico on this issue... I don't know what happened there.... DK "janet" wrote in message link.net... the neighbor would be diverting it (for a pond i am assuming he intends to dig) and the level of our pond level would drop. it's not so much a stream but a spring that flows from his property into ours. "RichToyBox" wrote in message news:q5_Ob.101991$xy6.189616@attbi_s02... There are two different sets of water law. One East and the other West. West the people staked a claim on a certain amount of water, first come first served, and if you were second and the water level was low enough that it did not fill firsts claim, the water could not be taken, even if it runs through your property. East water law says you can dam it up, but you cannot divert it. It still has to go down the same stream that it would have gone down to start with. That law is routinely broken, in that cities take water from the up stream area of the river, divert it through the water treatment system, and it finds its way back into the stream at the sewage treatment facility, down stream. Is your neighbor diverting it around your pond, such that you don't get the benefit of the water? If so, then I would say you have a claim. Were you diverting it from its normal stream? If so, then you do not have a claim. Is he just slowing down the flow, by using part of it, or creating his own pond, but it finds itself back into the pond, through percolation, or once his pond is full? Then you do not have a claim. This is the way understand the water laws of the US, but my education on these is almost 40 years old. -- RichToyBox http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html "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 |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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 |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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 |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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 |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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 |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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! =----- |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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! =----- |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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! =----- |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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 |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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! =----- |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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. |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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. |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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. |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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. |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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. |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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. |
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter