Home

How the EPA separates landowners from their properties

6 Comments

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 attempted to impose a “by-pass flow” that would have taken some 50 percent of the dry-year water supply provided from a Colorado municipal water storage facility.

In Idaho, a federal permittee was told he would have to bypass water to protect aquatic species or obtain an alternate source of water at a cost of $120,000.
In Arizona, where state law requires water rights be held by the person making the beneficial use of the water, the regional forester had demanded that water rights owned by grazing permittees be transferred to the feds – rights long established under state law for livestock purposes.

Federal agencies—at the direction of the EPA—are using the ESA nationwide to try and override established water rights, state laws, and the McCarran Act.
Under the Water Rights Act of 1952 (McCarran Amendment) it’s illegal for anyone – federal agency or citizen, without exception – to force water bypasses or withhold water along natural flowing streams, rivers, and their tributaries. More

Property Rights At Stake in the Florida Senate

1 Comment

strip banner

image_13601807349881360180738

 The latest threat to property rights, not to mention just bad government policy, is
SB 1576 entitled, “An act relating to springs.”

It is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Committee on Environmental Protection and Conservation Thursday, March 20, at 8 AM. You can see the bill by going to

www.flsenate.gov and inserting the bill number in the search engine.

Many, if not most, Floridians recognize the need to protect water quantity and quality. And, that certainly means protecting Florida’s springs and aquifer. Politicians know this and some want to join the stampede to pass “something” to “protect” springs. But, don’t be fooled…SB 1576 will not do that. Here’s why

SB 1576 needlessly targets septic systems as a significant contributor to nitrogen pollution. More

Liberty and Property Rights Coalition Event in Siskiyou Co. CA.

1 Comment

strip banner

new-logo25  By Liz Bowen

____________________________________________________________________

  • Yreka, CA. July 20 – 1-4 p.m.  Yreka Community Theater

  • Dorris, CA. July 21 – 2-5 p.m.  Dorris Community Center

Solutions for attacks on property rights Event

 

SISKIYOU COUNTY – Ranchers, property owners and Constitutional groups from four Western states will meet at the top of California to discuss solutions to protect private property rights; and open roads in USFS managed lands.

Siskiyou County, California, and neighboring Klamath County, in Oregon, feel plenty of heat as fights over water, wolves and closed Forest Service roads slam in waves one-after-the-other.

Much of rural America feels the heavy-hand of demands from government agencies, Tribes and Enviro NGOs. Yes, ranchers along this Klamath River area are surrounded by over-regulations and greed.

Recently, the Klamath Tribe exercised its priority Water Right in Oregon and shut-off the water to 115,000 acres of pasture and hay ranches affecting over 80,000 head of cattle. And ranchers, along with home owners in Siskiyou County, are fighting a lawsuit to save their Water Right from the Karuk Tribe and NGO Klamath River Keepers.

But in this stifling mud and muck, solutions have been found. They just need to be learned and applied, according to three ranchers that will be speaking July 20-21 at the Liberty and Property Rights Coalition Events in Siskiyou County. Admission is free.

“This is the caper,” said Ramona Hage Morrison, whose family has fought one of the longest battles in the West to protect their Water and Grazing Rights in Nevada.

“They have hood-winked the property owners. Most don’t understand their property rights, but we can fix that,” smiles Hage-Morrison.

Yes, in the face of constant threats, Hage-Morrison is upbeat. Her family has won major “rights” issues in federal court over the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. She will be sharing the line of defense that worked in Hage “takings” case and their “forage right” case.

The Liberty and Property Rights Coalition Event will be held at the Yreka Community Theater, at 812 North Oregon Street in Yreka — at the north end of town. Take the third off-ramp from I-5 exit 775. Time is 1 to 4 p.m. on Sat. July 20th. Several motels are in close proximity of the Event.

Then on Sun. July 21st, Butte Valley Protect our Property is hosting the Event at the Dorris Community Center, again at the north end of town on Highway 97.  Time is 2 to 5 p.m.

“This is a celebration,” said organizer Debbie Bacigalupi, “and we are going to learn from those who have won. We are energized as this historical meeting brings property owners from four states into one Event.”

Arizona Rancher Danny Martinez worked with the Hage’s on their lawsuits and used what he learned to defend his ranch from the federal agencies. Martinez will share the remedies he has found. Bring your notebook.

Then Casey Anderson, a rancher from Idaho, will have a slide show on the federal mismanagement of wolves.

Michael Shaw, who just won a significant lawsuit over his property rights against Alameda County, will be serving as Master of Ceremonies for both meetings.

For more information on this Liberty and Property Rights Coalition Event, go to Support Rural America.com or call Louise Gliatto at 530-842-5443.

# # #

www.supportruralamerica.com

Property Rights Decisions: Based on Science or Ideology?

2 Comments

The “My Word” column in yesterday’s (July 26, 2012) edition of the Orlando Sentinel brings out an interesting point regarding the use of facts and science in allowing property owners to enjoy and use their land.

The Adena Springs Ranch near Silver Springs, Florida is comprised of nearly 25,000 acres. It is located in northeastern Marion County between Ocala and Ocala National Forest and they plan to grow cattle. Their website says they are committed “to raise and harvest the animals in a way that protects his neighbors and the environment.” For the details on their proposed operations visit: www.adenaspringsranch.com

Part of the permitting process includes applying for a water use permit. Last Sunday, the Sentinel wrote an editorial attempting to create fear that the granting of this permit would be gambling with the environmental purity and water resource of Silver Springs. Click HERE to read the article

The author of the “My Word” column responded by stating this fear is not based on any scientific evidence. None has ever been offered. In fact, the homework done by Ranch owner, Frank Stronach, led them to issue the following statement regarding the permit, “We know that it will not harm environmental or water resources or our neighbors. You can read his response HERE More

One of the best places to follow the money behind NAIS is Wisconsin

1 Comment

NAIS_Follow_The_Money_Header

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/
  • Tell a Friend
  • Read full article here

    Case Study: Wisconsin

    One of the best places to follow the money behind NAIS is Wisconsin, where the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium (WLIC) and its partner group, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection (WDATCP)81 have managed to secure close to $7 million in federal funding and more than a million dollars in non-federal funding over the last eight years.82,83 Bolstered by a state law requiring every farm premises to be registered in a central database, these groups are serving as administrators of what amounts to a state-level pilot project for NAIS.

    The WLIC, a consortium of private industry stakeholders and government agencies, has used these federal tax dollars to fund groups that could benefit financially from NAIS. By the middle of 2005, WLIC reportedly was funding more than a dozen research projects valued at close to $400,000, with money going to the Wisconsin Pork Association,84 which currently sits on the WLIC board of directors, and Smithfield, a current member of WLIC.85

    WLIC was founded in 2002 as “a proactive, livestock industry- driven effort”86 with a mission “to create a secure, nationally compatible livestock identification system.”87 The members and affiliates of the consortium read like a laundry list of the corporate and private interests that stand to gain from a mandatory NAIS. The big animal-ID tech companies, like AgInfoLink, Digital Angel, Global Animal Management, Y-Tex and Allflex USA, are all represented as members.88

    In coalition with the Wisconsin Department of Trade and Consumer Protection, the WLIC has developed its own USDA-compliant Animal Tracking Database — one of six that the USDA considers fully functional and capable of providing traceability.89

    The push for animal tracking in Wisconsin, however, has not gone smoothly. Some farmers continue to resist registering their premises or participating in animal identification — either because of privacy or property rights concerns, or, in the case of Amish farmers, on religious grounds.90 In 2007, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture began sending letters to dairy farmers on unregistered premises indicating their milk production licenses could be revoked if they failed to register their farms.91 This threat, which would have essentially forced non-compliant dairy farmers to go out of business, was eventually softened,92 but to critics of NAIS, it demonstrates the heavy-handed tactics that government agencies are willing to use to promote the program.

    %d bloggers like this: