Lake Tschida camping spot to close

[johnr]

Between the scoria mud and algae I don't see the draw to that place. One can about run half way across the lake if quick and lite on ones feet its so thick with algae by the beginning of July......Yuck!!! Last time down there took me a full day to wash of 2 hours worth of boating in that scummy place.

To those that like it more power to ya, playing in water that's the consistency of pea soup ain't for me.

I agree. I like it there in the later fall, October time

 

[shorthairsrus]

Between the scoria mud and algae I don't see the draw to that place. One can about run half way across the lake if quick and lite on ones feet its so thick with algae by the beginning of July......Yuck!!! Last time down there took me a full day to wash of 2 hours worth of boating in that scummy place.

To those that like it more power to ya, playing in water that's the consistency of pea soup ain't for me.

Not as bad as ashtray - one can walk across the green

 

[gst]

Lake Tschida's sole purpose was for Flood Control of the Heart river. They had no intentions of it becoming a major recreation destination. The Roth's did not want to give the BOR a lifetime easement for the road. They were going to make it a term easement. The Roth's have been uncooperative in the entire process. It's not like the BOR and Tri City JDA are asking for a lot. Red-Rocks customer base utilizes that boat dock more than anyone and Red Rock is the private cabin resort owned by the Roths.

The JDA was having an issue with it because Red Rock wanted the Grant County Sheriff's department to patrol the area, public camp ground Koehler's (sheriff's department has a contract with the JDA to patrol the managed camp grounds). The Sherriff's department said that they were not going to patrol Koehler's point anymore due to the road hazards going through Roth's property (Red Rock Resort). Roth's added speed bumps and the road was so narrow to where 2 campers could not pass each other. So the JDA said they were dropping Koehler's point from the patrol area of the sheriff's contract because the GC Sheriff's department were not willing to patrol due to the marginal road going through Roth's property.

So Roth's (Red Rock Resort owners) played hardball and were completely unprofessional with both the JDA and BOR in the beginning. So the BOR finally got fed up with it. BOR said this is how it is or you will not have a dock at the pure convenience of your privately owned camping resort and customers. Then Roth's realized that they "probably" should listen to the writing on the wall. They had the meeting, everyone was in 100% agreeance at the meeting, along with Roth's attorney, who was present. Then they go and draft an easement and file it at the court house, and it wasn't 100% what was agree upon!

It is upsetting to see them remove the ramp if that's what comes out of it. And I do not support the government having ultimate control, but that is the way it is. With that being said, if you are the Roth's why on earth would you ever smart off to the people who have ultimate control over the boat ramp that is utilized by your paying customer base? That's like telling the Police Officer to piss off the next time you get pulled over for speeding. Sometimes a person has to use their head and stop puffing their chest, because you will not win.

1, It really doesn;t matter what "purpose" the dam was for, it is a recreational area now. Thats what happens when people dam rivers and create lakes and allow cabins to be built.

2. Please explain why someone should not be able to give a "term" easement instead of a "lifetime" easement on their own property if they wish.

3. Indeed a road not wide enough for two campers to meet driving into a primative camping area is terrible. If the fella wanted the sheriff to patrol it and they had an issue with the road, that was between him and the sheriffs dept.

4. Was the BOR acting appropriately when they told people and permitted them to stick monies into their cabins and then forced them arbitrarily to move them? Perhaps people that live there are disgusted enough with a Federal agency acting in this manner they are saying the hell with it?

So the BOA says "this is how it is" and kicks people out of their cabins forcing them to remove them after permitting improvements yet the other fella was "playing hard ball" .

I mean the COE, BLM, EPA, BOR, USFS ect... are all so willing to work with people right?

 

[Allen]

gst.

I am VERY familiar with Tschida and the issues present.

A person can spin it as they wish, but those people are simply unhappy with the loss of their special privilege to public property.

That special privilege turns $3k shithole campers into $80k "lake homes".

You may be happy with people raping fellow citizens over access to public property, but I am not.



So gst, as the great question asker, might I ask you a question?

I can, awesome!


If I were to sign a lease, let's say to rent some of your pasture land and it has a term on it of 1 yr. Why would I expect to be able to sign a lease the next year for the same terms and conditions? Should not you as the owner be able to change conditions and/or rent?

- - - Updated - - -

4. Was the BOR acting appropriately when they told people and permitted them to stick monies into their cabins and then forced them arbitrarily to move them? Perhaps people that live there are disgusted enough with a Federal agency acting in this manner they are saying the hell with it?

I believe in the leases, the terms have ALWAYS included language that said any permanent improvement to the sites (wells, etc) are done at the expense of the leaseholder but immediately become the property of the federal government. Not unlike if I let a leaseholder drill a water well on my land to water his cattle. Once he is done leasing my land, he can't take the well with him.

Other things such as the building of decks, storage sheds, etc. All these improvements to the site are still the property of the leaseholder as far as I know. Pack it up and take it with you.

 

[gst]

Allen, if you wish answers to question you ask, perhaps you can provide an answer to those asked of you.

"So then the question is should we just assume that a Federal agency willing to act like this is not part of the problem and it is soley this one other fella ?"

Please explain in more detail how we are being "raped" specifically in this case. I would say being permitted to drill wells and install sewers at significant expense only to be told you have to move in less than a years time after making those improvements would feel a bit like being "raped" wouldn't you?

Now to answer your questions.

"If I were to sign a lease, let's say to rent some of your pasture land and it has a term on it of 1 yr. Why would I expect to be able to sign a lease the next year for the same terms and conditions? "

Possibly because we had had an " an arrangement that has worked well for decades" in place and I had given you "permits" to make long term improvements without indicating any changes were coming.

If I as the "landlord" gave you indication that you could indeed go ahead and put long term improvements on that property spending thousands, and then jerked the lease out from under you after you had done that, what would be your response allen?

It would be interesting to see what a court would say. But who will spend the hundreds of thousands to sue the Federal govt in a case that will ultimately end up in a Federal court.

From the article you did not indicate whether you bothered to read or not...........

"The bureau’s draconian move came less than a year after it had advised owners of cabins and mobile homes that they could expand the structures on their parcels. Believing in the good faith of the bureau, many people, at considerable personal expense, added decks, sheds, and other improvements to their properties. “By issuing building permits for decks, septic systems, and other structures,” the Bismarck Tribune noted in a recent editorial, “the bureau has forfeited the ability to tell those with mobile homes parked in low-lying areas to simply clear out.



"Should not you as the owner be able to change conditions and/or rent?"

Indeed at the end of a lease the owner of a property should be able to change conditions and or rent. Can you provide us information to show that after being permitted to make these long term improvements to the properties that all these mobile home leases were at their end?

From the article I shared it does not appear that they were, only the structures that were tied to the permitted improvements were being required to be moved.

So your made up scenario is kind of an apples to oranges comparison.

If so, why were permanent structures allowed to remain and only the mobile home structures required to be moved?

Would not those propane tanks from permanent homes not be just as large a concern to the residents of Mandan as they went down the glory hole at the dam?

Are you angry about the permanent structure owners "raping" you as well or is it only those "$3k shithole campers" that are "raping" you?

The bottom line here is that the BOR , a Federal agency, pulled a shitty because they are the Federal govt and they can, that left people feeling no different than you would after drilling a well in a pasture you no longer get to use.

And yet they now expect others to bend to their wants on peoples private property.

- - - Updated - - -

gst.

So gst, as the great question asker, might I ask you a question?

I can, awesome!

My apologizes, the answer to your question is certainly.

 

[gst]

More unsigned "bad" rep.

• 05-11-2016 09:13 AM
  
  Thread: Lake Tschida camping spot to close
  yuck
  
  
• 05-09-2016 09:48 PM
  
  Thread: 2016 Lake Sakakawea Land Transfer
  Ummmm I think I asked you how much is enough first. Feel the Bern on those damned 1%ers........... If you would, go back and actually answer those questions I posed. Is 65% not enough? Because that is what is "public" land in Idaho and yet people
  

 

[MarbleEyez]

1, It really doesn;t matter what "purpose" the dam was for, it is a recreational area now. Thats what happens when people dam rivers and create lakes and allow cabins to be built.

2. Please explain why someone should not be able to give a "term" easement instead of a "lifetime" easement on their own property if they wish.

3. Indeed a road not wide enough for two campers to meet driving into a primative camping area is terrible. If the fella wanted the sheriff to patrol it and they had an issue with the road, that was between him and the sheriffs dept.

4. Was the BOR acting appropriately when they told people and permitted them to stick monies into their cabins and then forced them arbitrarily to move them? Perhaps people that live there are disgusted enough with a Federal agency acting in this manner they are saying the hell with it?

So the BOA says "this is how it is" and kicks people out of their cabins forcing them to remove them after permitting improvements yet the other fella was "playing hard ball" .

I mean the COE, BLM, EPA, BOR, USFS ect... are all so willing to work with people right?

Like I stated, I am not for ultimate government control. I think the BOR, EPA, COE are MOSTLY a bunch of half-brains at best. My point is this entire situation escalated because Red Rock was upset with the JDA, and then they became extremely unprofessional about the entire thing. People volunteer their time for the JDA, the entire purpose is for community development. Things were agreed on by all parties at a special meeting, then behind closed doors they changed it. Each party needed to meet half way. Give the BOR a easement, road will be widened, boat docks will stay in, sheriff will once again patrol the campground and everyone will be somewhat happy. Now, Koehler Point campers will drive 6+ miles around to launch a boat.

It is a common sense thing to me is all. You're not going to get your cake and eat it too.

And as far as the permits for cabin improvements, that's a bunch of bologna as well. BUT, you need to read the terms in the lease. If it's stated in there that you may be authorized to move you structure under flood plain orders, at any point in time deemed by the BOR, then that's what it is. Again, I think it is a bunch of crap, but that's how it is.

 

[gst]

Probably a few things going on behind the scenes we may likely not be aware of.

Lauren Donovan of the Trib has a habit of not getting the entire story.

 

[Kenneth]

im starting to see a pattern here

 

[gst]

Thanks for the positive rep.............to whomever.

 

[dean nelson]

gst.

I am VERY familiar with Tschida and the issues present.

A person can spin it as they wish, but those people are simply unhappy with the loss of their special privilege to public property.

That special privilege turns $3k shithole campers into $80k "lake homes".

You may be happy with people raping fellow citizens over access to public property, but I am not.



So gst, as the great question asker, might I ask you a question?

I can, awesome!


If I were to sign a lease, let's say to rent some of your pasture land and it has a term on it of 1 yr. Why would I expect to be able to sign a lease the next year for the same terms and conditions? Should not you as the owner be able to change conditions and/or rent?

- - - Updated - - -

4. Was the BOR acting appropriately when they told people and permitted them to stick monies into their cabins and then forced them arbitrarily to move them? Perhaps people that live there are disgusted enough with a Federal agency acting in this manner they are saying the hell with it?

I believe in the leases, the terms have ALWAYS included language that said any permanent improvement to the sites (wells, etc) are done at the expense of the leaseholder but immediately become the property of the federal government. Not unlike if I let a leaseholder drill a water well on my land to water his cattle. Once he is done leasing my land, he can't take the well with him.

Other things such as the building of decks, storage sheds, etc. All these improvements to the site are still the property of the leaseholder as far as I know. Pack it up and take it with you.

Well they couldn't keep the hole he sure the hell can take all the equipment with him from the pump all the way down to the pipe.

 

[Allen]

gst,

I have indeed read the article. Personally, only thing that crossed my mind was "what a bunch of pompous asses" with respect to the editors. Under what authority do they have the right to tell anyone, or any govt agency, what they have or have not forfeited? In general I think they are poorly informed and not in keeping with the good of the general public. "Authority" is something left for the courts to decide, not the editors of the Tribune.

The permanent structures are in a different classification if I remember correctly because they are up and out of the flood pool. Those locations that are in the flood pool elevation are the ones being required to be REMOVABLE in case of a flood. The leaseholders generally failed to do that during the 2009 flood event, which is what leads to garbage ending up in the water, including propane tanks. Note, I still don't support the presence of the permanent structures either. I see no reason why they should be allowed exclusive access to property I, as a taxpayer, am a part owner. All the while we taxpayers have subsidized the HELL out of their recreational property. Recently, Reclamation had an economic study done on the value of those places and at least they will get to start paying more realistic lease rates, so the taxpayer subsidies seems to be a little less of a concern in the future.


Hey, I think I am probably with you on the side of the easement. If Roth doesn't want an easement, then the public and Reclamation can go pound sand. Well, unless and until a case could be made that there exists a strong enough need for the public to warrant condemnation and the taking of his land. I seriously doubt that case could be made though. All the same, Roth doesn't get to put his stamp of ownership of the road so he can basically have a federally funded boat ramp available to his campers. Screw that!

 

[gst]

Allen, the bottom line here is there is a seemingly common thread among Federal agencies to ignore long standing agreements that as the article said have worked well for decades/generations .

These fourth branch govt agencies are really answerable to no one. Tell us what elected official oversees the BOR daily actions that is answerable to the people?

If it is actually about being in the "flood plain" then this govt agency should never have told these people and actually permitted them to make improvements such as sewers and such. Once that permit was granted there is indeed likely the right of either usage or compensation if usage is denied.

Check out what the courts ruled with that welder in Wy. that the EPA screwed with.

But then that is typical govt management which we see all the time. Perhaps you think the govt permitting people to do something (at a cost to the person) then in less than a year after that "something" is done telling them they can not use it is "keeping with the good of the people"?

Allen it appears that these places are not being required just to be "removable" but rather "removed" period. There is a bit of difference there.

 

[Allen]

Once the "agreement", aka a lease expires. It has no standing past it's term. These aren't 40 year leases they are changing in year 5, these are annual leases. EVERYTHING is subject to change on a new lease.

And I believe you are wrong in that none of those camp sites are being closed, those people still are retaining the "right" to lease the site in the future (that's being phased out as I understand it, but is still in place for the time being). What they are losing is the right to have something on the site that cannot be immediately hooked up to and drug off site in the case of another flood. They must go from mobile homes setting on concrete blocks with the wheels removed (and often sold or discarded) to 5th wheel or bumper hitch campers with round things on the axles. So their septic, or wells, that you think they are being screwed out of are still in fact there for them to use.

If you know of sites that are being closed, that would be news to me.


"These fourth branch govt agencies are really answerable to no one. Tell us what elected official oversees the BOR daily actions that is answerable to the people?"

Do you seriously not know the answer to this question, or are you just effing with me/us by referring to it as a "4th" branch of govt?

The elected official that oversees the Bureau of Reclamation is the president of the United States. Like all other federal agencies, it is a part of the executive branch of the government. Other elected officials that have considerable sway with federal agencies include the sitting members of the U.S. Congress. They wield the power of the purse, and they have been known to often use it to sway the decision making process.

- - - Updated - - -

As always, anyone with more intimate knowledge of the actual details can feel free to chime in anytime. This is something I here about but don't exactly take notes on because it doesn't affect me personally.

 

[SDMF]

im starting to see a pattern here

So are we. 'Sconi's are all low down dirty rotten poachers, even 'Sconi cops poach when they come to ND.

 

[Kenneth]

So are we. 'Sconi's are all low down dirty rotten poachers, even 'Sconi cops poach when they come to ND.

The hmong are the worst poachers over here. I see them all the time on devils lake too. Strange we don't hear more about them being caught in north Dakota.

 

[gst]

"Leaseholders at the lake have gone to extraordinary lengths to reach an accommodation with the bureau. They have offered to move their mobile homes to a higher elevation on their lots, and to remove the homes altogether over the winter months. The latter proposal would effectively eliminate whatever remote risk the mobile homes posed from floodwaters, because they would not be brought back to the lake until after the winter snow had melted. All of this has been to no avail. The only “compromise” the bureau has been willing to make is to allow the mobile homes to stay until 2022. After that, they must go. All the leaseholders have gotten is a stay of execution."

So allen you are saying people are building permanent structures on annual leased property? Or are only the leases with mobile homes annual?

Your concern seemed to be about propane tanks floating around. Is there terms in the leases to require all propane tanks to be moored?

There seems to be a concern over this being a "flood plain" and yet the govt permitted sewers to be dug and now after Sen Hoven has pressed them they are considering allowing "mobile homes" to be left there as long as they meet anchoring requirements so it is not about those "round things" being on their axles.

The "fourth branch" of govt ...........so you have the ability to go talk with Obama if you have an issue with how this camp ground is being run?

Say doesn;t he "oversee" the COE? Allen, maybe you can take Tim with you to go talk with him about that land they want to turn over to the tribes here in ND...............

Indeed Lois Lerner with the IRS certainly was dealt with effectively by someone you and I can approach wasn't she. Indeed who better to appoint to the head of the BLM than Harry Reids former advisor, how much did you or I have to say about that great appointment.

At least the BOR has not created their own enforcement branch and armed themselves with automatic weapons...............

Yes in some instances speaking with our elected officials can "sway" a handful of people in these agencies (Hoven seems to have made an impression in this case after the fact) but if you think these agencies worry about the "good of the general public/will of the people" thru our elected officials you are a bit more naive than I thought.

- - - Updated - - -

gst.

I am VERY familiar with Tschida and the issues present.

 

[SDMF]

The hmong are the worst poachers over here. I see them all the time on devils lake too. Strange we don't hear more about them being caught in north Dakota.

They learned when the 1st batch got nabbed after ND G&F put a daily/possession limit on White Bass. "Sconi schools can't even teach their LEO's how to read nor comprehend a pamphlet regarding fishing regs.

 

[gst]

As always, anyone with more intimate knowledge of the actual details can feel free to chime in anytime. This is something I here about but don't exactly take notes on because it doesn't affect me personally.

"VERY familiar".........?

 

[Allen]

gst,

Their being able to remove the mobile homes was always a condition of the lease as far as I know, that's what has always differentiated these sites from those with permanent structures. Problem was when the shit hit the fan, not a single one of them got moved (again, that I am aware of). Lack of tires, attached decks and sheds, and poor access due to mud and snow covered roads, etc. It just didn't happen. So yes, when you can't live up to the previous conditions and expectations, one should expect something to change in order to help you meet your obligations to Big Brother and your neighbors.

- - - Updated - - -

p.s. BOR does have law enforcement.