Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gst" data-source="post: 164708" data-attributes="member: 373">kurt if the lands in question are in fact "excess" for the flood control purpose of the takings of these lands, then if they are being kept by the govt, the purpose of the govt taking those lands becomes for recreation because they were not needed for flood control. (and I am skeptical of any govt agency determining much of anything as well) It is like making an agreement with a perpetual easement with the govt under a certain set of terms......then the govt comes in and changes the terms of the agreement (which they keep the ability to do in a perpetual easement and the ONLY out you have is to sue them under the takings clause of the Constitution which takes MANY dollars and much time which most do not have)  My point here is if the original purpose and intent was to take these lands for flood control and recreation was NOT part of the original purpose of the takings, the govt should have to either dispose of excess lands or renegotiate the taking for the purpose those lands are being used for that was not a part of the original agreement. Otherwise what is to stop the govt at some point from doing what I laid out in the examples I gave? If the govt gains the precedence to change these original agreements as they see fit without engaging in the due process of law regarding takings as spelled out in our Constitution it is a very large Pandora's box.</blockquote>