Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gst" data-source="post: 103357" data-attributes="member: 373">Allen, the bottom line here is there is a seemingly common thread among&nbsp; Federal agencies to ignore long standing agreements that as the article&nbsp; said have worked well for decades/generations . These fourth&nbsp; branch govt agencies are really answerable to no one. Tell us what&nbsp; elected official oversees the BOR daily actions that is answerable to&nbsp; the people? If it is actually about being in the &quot;flood plain&quot;&nbsp; then this govt agency should never have told these people and actually&nbsp; permitted them to make improvements such as sewers and such. Once that&nbsp; permit was granted there is indeed likely the right of either usage or&nbsp; compensation if usage is denied. Check out what the courts ruled with that welder in Wy. that the EPA screwed with. But&nbsp; then that is typical govt management which we see all the time. Perhaps&nbsp; you think the govt permitting people to do something (at a cost to the&nbsp; person) then in less than a year after that &quot;something&quot; is done telling&nbsp; them they can not use it is &quot;keeping with the good of the people&quot;? Allen&nbsp; it appears that these places are not being required just to be&nbsp; &quot;removable&quot; but rather &quot;removed&quot; period. There is a bit of difference&nbsp; there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gst, post: 103357, member: 373"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA