"Read all about it"

Posts Tagged ‘Flood plain study’

Supreme Court Justices Blast EPA For Thwarting Couple From Building On Protected Wetlands

In Uncategorized on January 11, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Thank God there are still a few conservative judges rendering bold decisions in America. Judge Antoine Scalia ruled in a case recently that the EPA cannot keep a couple from building a house on their own land because of established “wetlands.”

This family, the Sacketts, attempting to live out the American Dream, work hard, buy a piece of land then build a nice house on that private property which they own!

Well that dream was almost foiled by the EPA stepping in and saying NO you can’t build on that piece of property you bought because it has had some flooding problems in the past! That dirt you have piled up there where you were going to build your house must be removed so the water can flow naturally!

Bradley County is doing a very expensive and expansive “flood plain study” real soon! After this study is done with I’m sure EPA and DOT oversight, definite flood plains will be established! Doesn’t seem so bad does it? After all we need to know where it is flooding, right? Well the flood plains are going to be places you cannot build upon! These will be wetlands, soon to be inhabitable! Does this not send any “red alerts” out? Does this seem alarming to anyone? Gaurantee you it will happen! And the flood plain can be as big and broad as any of our paid federal stooges want it to be! So if they want a piece of land they take it! They make it a wetland, unbuildable! Unbelievable!

Bradley County and Cleveland your mayors x 2 are giving us away to federal regulators! They both have moved toward this goal of grabbing your land with obviously no consequences for their actions!

I am in shock at the lack of forethought and inactivity among our political leaders that are not trying to stop this madness. The thoughts of someone trying to claim your private property with federal regulations should be enough to mount a full court press against the EPA, but I get nothing! No reaction whatsoever, just silence while they pile on more and more strangulating regulations almost everyday!

These local guys love the little bit of money they get in federal grants! They think this is a good thing! To spend your money which we do not have to spend in a very down economy!

Read below the story of the Sacketts and the struggles they face just because they want to build a house on their property! When you are done reading, go back and place your name there in place of the Sacketts with your own name!

Supreme Court Justices Blast EPA For Thwarting Couple From Building On Protected Wetlands
by AP | Jan. 9, 2012, 4:55 PM | 4,596
WASHINGTON (AP) — Several conservative members of the Supreme Court criticized the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday for heavy-handed enforcement of rules affecting homeowners after the government told an Idaho couple they can’t challenge an order declaring their future home site a “protected wetlands.”
Justice Antonin Scalia assailed the “high-handedness” of the environmental agency when dealing with private property, and Justice Samuel Alito described some of the EPA’s actions as “outrageous,” arguing that most people would say “this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States.”
The EPA said that Mike and Chantell Sackett illegally filled in most of their 0.63-acre lot with dirt and rocks in preparation for building a home. The agency said the property is a wetlands that cannot be disturbed without a permit. The Sacketts had none.
The couple, who attended the Supreme Court arguments, said they had no reason to suspect there were wetlands on their property. They paid $23,000 for their property in 2005 and decided two years later to build a three-bedroom home. Workers spent three days filling in just under a half-acre of land.
Three EPA officials showed up, said they believed the land was wetlands, asked for a permit and told the workers to stop. Six months later, the EPA sent the order that triggered the court case. The Sacketts wanted to challenge that order, but lower courts have said that they cannot.
The EPA issues nearly 3,000 administrative compliance orders a year that call on alleged violators of environmental laws to stop what they’re doing and repair the harm they’ve caused. Major business groups, homebuilders, road builders and agricultural interests all have joined the Sacketts in urging the court to make it easier to contest EPA compliance orders issued under several environmental laws.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wondered how far the Supreme Court should go in a ruling, noting that government agencies often threaten citations when people don’t comply with the law. “Health inspectors go into restaurants all the time and say: ‘Unless you fix this, I’m going to give you a citation.’ Fire inspectors, the same thing,” he said.
The Sacketts’ lawyer, Damien M. Schiff, argued that they weren’t trying to take away EPA’s power. Environmental groups say a purpose of the orders is to make it easier to negotiate a resolution without a protracted legal fight.
“Let EPA administer the act and issue compliance orders,” Schiff said. “But let’s also give homeowners a fair shake, too. Let them have their day in court to contest what the agency has done.”
Alito leveled some of the strongest criticism against the EPA, noting that the Sacketts had to wait until the EPA sued them to even challenge the idea that there were wetlands on their property.
“You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: ‘You have filled in wetlands, so you can’t build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to,'” Alito said. “You have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don’t do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000. And by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you.”
Chief Justice John Roberts said that because of the potential fines, few people are going to challenge the EPA’s determinations.
“Because of the administrative compliance order, you’re really never going to be put to the test, because most land owners aren’t going to say, ‘I’m going to risk the $37,000 a day,” Roberts said. “All EPA has to do is make whatever finding it wants, and realize that in 99 percent of the cases, it’s never going to be put to the test.”
The EPA’s normal procedure is to contact the homeowner before issuing a compliance order, Justice Department lawyer Malcolm Stewart said. A wetlands biologist has also confirmed to The Associated Press that he advised the Sacketts in May 2007 that their property was a wetlands and that there were wetlands on three sides of their land. The Sacketts say that in 2010, other wetlands consultants examined their land and concluded that the first one was wrong.
If the Sacketts “had wanted a judicial resolution of the coverage question without subjecting themselves to potential penalties, they could have filed a permit application before discharging, they could have gotten review there. All we’re saying is they can’t discharge fill, wait to see whether EPA notices, and then insist upon immediate judicial review if EPA notices and objects,” Stewart said.

Agenda 21, Ch. 18: Bradley County Flood Plain Study, $ 300, 000 dollars so far

In Uncategorized on January 6, 2012 at 4:08 PM

SEPARATING PEOPLE FROM THEIR WATER

We are just following directions Boss! I’m a useful idiot, and if the money is right, I’ll do anything they want me to do! Yesirree!!!

It is so common place to hear of our elected leaders/planners implementing Agenda 21 via Left wing Environmental/Climate Change Police in Bradley County it is not even surprising to me anymore! While Our left wing progressive, globalist Mayors are moving ahead with this initiative it is almost comical at the breakneck speed in which they are doing so! The surprising thing is most in this town are either oblivious to it or are complicit in their acceptance of it!

A flood plain study is being proposed this week by the City Mayor Tom Rowland and City and County planners at a cost of 300,000 dollars! I’m guessing the county will have to match that amount. If that is true that is another 600,000 of your tax dollars being contributed for a “flood plain study!”

Let me try to explain to you why a flood plain study and establishment of a flood plain is essential to implementing Agenda 21 in our area! The cities and counties reasons are obviously to prevent flooding, to protect it’s people from “dangerous flooding. I am with them on this concept! The rest of the story is the real humdinger! Your elected officials may be sold on this I am not, however!

In environmental/Climate change/agenda 21/United Nations world it is a completely different story! See based on false science, which has gotten much press lately, the earth is sinking! If the Earth is sinking, this creates water basins, sinking areas! Water basins collect with water and causes flooding, this putting a great deal of people in harms way! Besides flooding it supposedly affects water quality, which affects your health! But one thing remains a fact, no one has any tangible hands on facts that the Earth is sinking! Theory from well paid scientist, but no tangible evidence! The world floods! That is determined! That happens because our maker designed it that way, man didn’t cause it as they suggest! The Earth flooded before we were here and will flood long after we are gone! I promise you!

(Stay with me I am going somewhere!) Remember, I’m no Al Gore, just a blogger trying to understand a very difficult plan to alter out landscape permanently!)

Ok, the established flooding leaves a perimeter of flood prone areas, much like a ring around your tub when you let the water out! This area, this tub ring, so to speak is your flood plain area.

The City of Cleveland has decided that we need to spend 300,000 dollars and perhaps the county getting involved up to 600,000 to establish that “ring around our tub!” Many well paid engineers from perhaps from DOT and or the Army Corps of Engineers will come in for a few days, we put them up in a nice motel, feed them and in exchange they tell is where our “ring around the tub is” and we give them our 600,000 dollars right! A few months later we receive a few hundred thousand in federal grants and everyone is happy! Right! Not so simple!

Now comes the scary part! We now have an established flood zone! A place where no one can live! That area is solely dependent on the results of this study! That area in Bradley County will be arguably anywhere they want it to be! Are the Wildlands projects or buffer zones where people will not live, ever, starting to make sense now! This area as this article by Michael Coffman may be only a few hundred yards wide, but when applied across the county, state and nation you are seeing millions of miles of square average claimed by the US Government under the leadership of the United Nations/ Agenda 21 because of Agenda 21!

If this seems bizarre to you that is ok! It should sound wierd and bizarre! This plan has been around a while and until this Presidency, the total environment was not there for this Agenda 21 plan to thrive! It is there now and it is moving quickly!

I challenge you to Search keywords “Chapter 18, Agenda 21”, “Flood plain study”, “UNEP, United Nations Environmental Program” and you will soon realize that our area is not the only one getting this done to them, it’s nationwide for a reasonand that is because there is a global international effort to do so, under the direction of Agenda 21 and the UN!

Why are flood plain studies being done everywhere? My point exactly, this is an Agenda 21 plan being enacted simultaneously around the world to gain control of your land and place restraints on you that you will never be able to recover or regain the land you lost!

Bradley County is simply following suit of th whole country! The “greenies” with their strict mandated compliance policies are finally getting their way and are rewarding willing participants royally for their implementation! Again, our elected officials selling you out for money!

By Dr. Michael S. Coffman Ph. D.
January 22, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

As the United Nations restructures itself to become a world government vis-a-vis global governance, it is being formed around the principles of sustainable development as defined by Agenda 21. Signed by the U.S. during the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in 1992, Agenda 21 is a 40-chapter manifesto to reorganize the world using socialist and pantheistic principles to protect Earth .

Agenda 21 represents a major fundamental change in the role of government in social and land-use policy. Under its concept of sustainability, the primary purpose of government will no longer be to serve the people. Rather, the focus of Agenda 21 is to protect nature from people. Governance will be by consensus among “stakeholders and partnerships.” The concept of elected representation that holds the government accountable to the citizens will be eliminated.

Agenda 21 requires that by 2000 “All States…have designed and initiated costed and targeted national action programmes, and to have put in place appropriate institutional structures and legal instruments” to implement Agenda 21. The Clinton Administration responded creating the President’s Council on Sustainable Development which published its report entitled Sustainable America in 1996. Chapter 18 of Agenda 21 requires that all States implement integrated watershed management plans “for the protection and conservation of the potential sources of freshwater supply, including … protection of mountain slopes and riverbanks and other relevant development and conservation activities.”

The Clinton Administration eagerly took up the challenge. In the U.S. State Department’s 1997 report on its progress to the UN, the U.S. proudly stated, “Agenda 21 sets ambitious objectives [for the United States to] … move toward integrated water resource management, a holistic approach that treats water resources as an integral part of the ecosystem.” Among the many programs spawned by Sustainable America to fulfill the fresh water protection requirements of Agenda 21 include the American Heritage Rivers (AHRI), and the Clean Water (CWI) initiatives. Neither program was voted on by the U.S. Congress. Instead, they are being implemented through executive order.

The American Heritage Rivers (AHR) program is designed to restore and protect rivers using non-elected authorities within portions of, or “entire watersheds,” potentially including all of the Mississippi watershed. Over 50% of the entire U.S. could technically come under the 1998 program.
Although both federal programs no longer are front-burner issues, they nonetheless are sleeping giants designed to gradually give the federal government power to control land use throughout America. For instance, the AHRI also makes it clear that “entire watersheds” are likely to be impacted by a designation of just a portion of them as an AHR. Technically, the entire Mississippi River watershed, covering 40 percent of America ? the breadbasket of America ? is now under the AHR program! While no effort is presently underway to extend this jurisdiction to watersheds upstream from the designated rivers, the option remains for future bureaucrats to gradually extend their jurisdiction.

The CWI has had a far greater, and more immediate impact. The CWI’s 1998 Clean Water Action Plan called for obliterating 5,000 miles of roads each year on federal land, and setting aside a whopping “two million miles of conservation buffers on agricultural lands.” The potential impact of this program is enormous. Tens of thousands of miles of road have now been withdrawn from public use on federal land. In just one consequence, many of the huge forest fires experienced since 1998 were greatly magnified when firefighters and equipment could not immediately access the fires using formerly existing roads. These roads were typically closed by digging huge holes in the roads called tank-traps, and ripping out bridges and culverts ? often causing major erosion and siltation to the very streams the road closures were supposed to protect.

The Department of Agriculture’s Stream Corridor Plan called for conservation corridors to equal the 100 year flood plain for a river in width, which could be many miles wide for some rivers. While seemingly innocuous, even a 100 foot buffer strip along two million miles totals a staggering 76,000 square miles (48 million acres), an area equivalent to the entire state of Nebraska! Much of this land contains some of the most productive land in America. In many cases the corridors would have an enormous economic impact on farmers and other landowners. Court challenges to this and other onerous provisions of the clean water initiative finally forced the federal agencies to back down when they realized they had no legal authority to force private citizens to obey their arbitrary and capricious regulations.

Ostensibly done to protect water quality, the road obliteration and river corridor plans create defacto wilderness reserves and corridors very similar to the requirements of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The treaty came within an hour of being ratified in 1994 when Sovereignty International, an educational and UN watchdog organization, provided irrefutable evidence to the U.S. Senate that the treaty would have required up to one-half of America be put into wilderness reserves and corridors!

Promoted as a plan to “reinvent government,” both the AHRI and CWI are touted as “ground up,” “community based” efforts under the control of local people called “River Communities” and “Watershed Councils.” In fact, each step is under the “top down” control of the feds. By definition, a River Community under the AHRI is “self-defined by the members of the community.” In practice, River Communities and Watershed Councils include anyone, especially environmental NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations). They are self-appointed, not elected. They are accountable to federal bureaucrats, not local and state elected officials.

These sometimes special interest non-elected entities are empowered to prioritize federal programs, and therefore funding. In doing so, agenda-driven non-elected people within the AHRI and CWI have the power to withhold monies from communities that don’t toe the federal line, while rewarding those that do. History has provided clear proof to the age-old adage of “he who controls the money controls the people.”

Protecting Mother Earth from use by humans in this way is not God ordained stewardship. Rather, it is regulation based on the desire to control people and their activities in a misguided belief that Mother Earth’s needs are more important than human needs.

© 2004 Michael Coffman – All Rights Reserved

%d bloggers like this: