Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Allen" data-source="post: 241492" data-attributes="member: 389">I believe this is targeting the federal government's turning over of &quot;non-essential&quot; lands originally acquired for the Garrison Project. The purpose for this would be to keep the shoreline open to you and I for pulling our boats up on it and letting the kids/dogs off to run and play.&nbsp; There is some concern already about TAT eventually working to block off those lands as the feds have moved towards putting those excess lands into a trust for them under BIA management.&nbsp; Someone feel free to correct me on this one.- - - Updated - - -And, of course, Jimbo isn't necessarily wrong either.There are other things as well, such as permitting for water intakes would then be done through the State as opposed to the Corps.&nbsp; This one has been particularly contentious with the State the past several years.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Allen, post: 241492, member: 389"] I believe this is targeting the federal government's turning over of "non-essential" lands originally acquired for the Garrison Project. The purpose for this would be to keep the shoreline open to you and I for pulling our boats up on it and letting the kids/dogs off to run and play. There is some concern already about TAT eventually working to block off those lands as the feds have moved towards putting those excess lands into a trust for them under BIA management. Someone feel free to correct me on this one. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] And, of course, Jimbo isn't necessarily wrong either. There are other things as well, such as permitting for water intakes would then be done through the State as opposed to the Corps. This one has been particularly contentious with the State the past several years. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA