Independence Institute

Property Rights Project


0 Comments

March 31st, 2008

Cushman: Congress Pursuing Huge Land Grabs

From Chuck Cushman:

Senate Vote Eminent After April 1st on Rim of Valley, Omnibus Parks.
Democrat Controlled Congress Pushing Huge Land Grabs on $10 Billion Omnibus Parks Bill now includes Rim of the Valley.

Urgent Action Required on S 2739.

Vote could come as early at Tuesday, April 1st. But it could be delayed for several
days.

Your calls will make a terrific difference.

You must call both your Senators every day from March 31st through April 4th. Any
Senator may be called at (202) 224-3121. Tell them to vote no on S 2739. Tell them
to remove Rim of the Valley.

It’s time for the Grassroots To Rise Up.

You must call, call and call again. Send faxes and e-mails.

Alert - Alert——- ALRA will send you a list showing you how your Senators voted on
S 2739 as well as how all the other Senators voted. You want to make sure you let
your Senator know in advance that you hold him or her accountable for their vote on
S 2739, The Omnibus Parks bill and Rim of the Valley.

Action Items:

Tell your Senator he or she needs to oppose S2739 for several reasons:

——-1. Omnibus Parks Bills are really just a way for Congress to pass dozens of
bills that could not pass on their own. They stick the American public with
$billion of dollars in pork projects and earmarks.

——-2. Congress has added the giant Rim of the Valley Study Bill. That will
eventually cost over $2 billion by itself.

It will put 169,000 landowners in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties inside park
boundaries subject to land acquisition. Most of the landowners have no idea what
is coming at them.

——-3. The Senate Committee approved Rim of the Valley without ever seeing a map.
American Land Rights has special high quality maps made up and delivered to the
Parks Committee in the Senate. Committee Staff failed to give them to the Senators
or their staff. Almost no Senators have seen a map. You can tell them they can see
a quality Rim of the Valley Map by going to www.landrights.org

The Senate is voting on $billions of dollars of your money without ever looking at
what they are spending the money on. They have not even looked at a map.

——-4. The total cost of S2739 could be as high as $10 billion and perhaps much
more.

——-5. Ask your Senator’s staff how he or she could vote for a huge land grab like
Rim of the Valley without ever seeing a map.

——-6. Ask your Senator’s staff how they could lock up hundreds of $billions of
dollars in strategic minerals without a hearing to hear from experts and the threat
to the country.

You will receive another e-mail tomorrow with the details on the minerals locked
up in the Parks Omnibus Parks bill.

——-7. Below is listed the entire Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
including their fax and e-mail addresses.


  • -

Here is the background of S 2639 from Parks and Recreation Newsletter by James
Coffin: Federal Parks & Rec [mailto:james@federalparksandrec.com]

Senate Omnibus Bill Said Near; Rim Of The Valley Added:

    A far-reaching bill (S 2739) that includes dozens of park and recreation measures

approved by both the House and the Senate Energy Committee is inches away from the
Senate floor.

    The measure, at least the fourth such omnibus bill the committee has prepared,

includes more than 60 individual bills the House has approved and the Senate
committee has approved. Thus, if the Senate signs off on S 2739, the measure is
virtually assured of final passage, subject to some last-second tinkering.

    Private property rights advocates who have the ear of powerful western senators are

up in arms. They are particularly annoyed that committee leaders this month added
to S 2739 a bill they despise that was not in previous omnibus measures -
legislation to authorize a Rim of the Valley study in California. Although the
committee has not approved the Rim of the Valley bill (S 1053) this year, it has
approved the measure the last three years.

    The Rim of the Valley bill would authorize a study of the possible addition of

500,000 acres to the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (SMMNRA.)
Critics such as the American Land Rights Association (ALRA) contend that the launch
of a study almost guarantees a positive recommendation for additions by the Park
Service followed by Congressional approval of an SMMNRA expansion. And that could
cost billions of dollars, the critics maintain.

    "I really hate these omnibus bills," said Chuck Cushman, president of ALRA and

long-term critic of Congressional spending on SMMNRA. “There are many desirable
provisions in the omnibus bill but there are a lot of undesirable ones too.
Congress ends up spending money that should be used for operation and maintenance
of existing parks.”

    Almost all committee legislation has been held up for most of a year by "holds"

placed by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) He reportedly objects to any legislation that
would come with a price tag and require additional spending.

    But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Democratic leaders have

apparently decided to proceed with S 2739 and attempt to break Coburn’s holds by
summoning the needed 60 votes for cloture. “The plan as I understand it is for
Sen. Reid to call the bill up for a cloture vote to defeat the hold,” said a
committee staff member. That could happen as early as next week.

Committee Republicans support the omnibus bill but are trying to stay out of the
crossfire between Reid and Coburn. “We’re trying to avoid the spray since a
Republican senator is responsible for the delay,” said a Republican committee staff
member. “But we would like to see the package move.”

    After the Senate acts on S 2739, it may take up a second package of

committee-passed measures that the House has NOT acted on. “We’re only doing
House-passed bills right now,” said the majority staff member. “The next package
behind it contains things that we have done but the House has not.” No timetable
has been set for the second bill but it could come up in the next month.

    That could open the way for Senate consideration in the second package of a major

bill (S 1139) to certify the 26 million-acre National Landscape Conservation System
(NLCS) managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The committee approved S 1139 May
23, 2007, but the bill has not moved since. The House Natural Resources Committee
approved a counterpart bill (HR 2016) March 12. Because the full House hasn’t
approved the NLCS bill, it may be a candidate for the next package. However, it
does carry some baggage.

    The Bush administration generally supports the Rim of the Valley legislation.  And

Democrats in the California Congressional delegation, led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein
and Rep. Adam Schiff, solidly back it. The House approved Schiff’s bill Dec. 4,
2007, as part of an omnibus House bill, HR 3998. The Senate Energy Committee has
scheduled a hearing for April 9 on the House-passed bill.

    SMMNRA is the largest urban park in the National Park System with 153,750 acres

within its boundaries. NPS says the area provides recreational opportunities for
approximately 530,000 visitors annually. The study area extends over 491,518 acres
and includes considerable private property.

    Here are some other bills included in the Senate omnibus measure:

HERITAGE AREAS: The new omnibus bill includes measures dealing with a number of
national heritage areas (NHAs.) S 2739 would designate a Journey Through Hallowed
Ground NHA in Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia and Virginia; an Abraham Lincoln
NHA in Illinois; and a Niagara Falls NHA in New York.
The House approved a multi-faceted national heritage areas bill (HR 1483) Oct. 25,
2007, that would designate six new NHAs including Journey Through Hallowed Ground,
Abraham Lincoln and Niagara Falls.

Like the House, S 2739 would increase a spending ceiling on these nine NHAs from $10
million to $15 million: National Coal Heritage Area in West Virginia, the Tennessee
Civil War Heritage Area, the Augusta Canal NHA in Georgia, the Steel Industry
American Heritage Area in Pennsylvania, the Essex NHA in Massachusetts, the South
Carolina National Heritage Corridor, America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership in
Iowa, the Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor in Ohio, and the Hudson River
Valley NHA in New York.

    Not included in S 2739 are at least four NHAs that the Senate committee has

approved but the House has not acted on. They are candidates for the next
committee package. They are a Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National
Heritage Corridor in Massachusetts and Connecticut; Sangre de Cristo NHA in
Colorado; South Park NHA in Colorado; and Chattahoochee Trace National Heritage
Corridor in Georgia and Alabama.

    Also not included in S 2739 are at least three NHA bills approved by the House that

would designate a Muscle Shoals NHA in Alabama; a Freedom’s Way NHA in
Massachusetts and New Hampshire; and a Santa Cruz Valley NHA in Arizona.

  • TRAILS: S 2739 would designate a Star Spangled Banner National Historic Trail in
    Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. The House approved its bill (HR
    1388) July 23, 2007.

  • RIVERS: S 2739 would designate the Eightmile River in Connecticut as a wild and
    scenic river. The House approved its bill (HR 986) July 31, 2007.

  • MISCELLANEOUS: S 2739 includes 21 other bills dealing with the Park Service,
    including boundary adjustments, studies, designation of commissions, and land
    conveyances. In addition the bill includes a Wild Sky wilderness bill for national
    forests in Washington, two land bills for the Bureau of Land Management, 14 water
    resources bills, two Department of Energy bills and two territories bills.


Voting In The Dark On Rim Of The Valley National Land Grab.

Rim of the Valley is now part of huge Omnibus Parks Bill (S2739) to be voted on
right after April 1st.

It’s technical title is —Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008)—

S2739 includes the infamous Rim of the Valley National Park. S2739 is part of a
huge Omnibus Parks Bill that includes many new parks, heritage areas, Wild and
Scenic Rivers and much more.

They put these bills into packages to make them very difficult to fight. Because so
many Members of the Senate have a little or big bill in the overall S2739 package,
they don’t take the time to look at the other bills. The result is a lot of bad
bills get slipped by.

All the bills in S2739 have already passed the House.

So it is do or die to stop S2739 now.

S2739 Threatens Landowners Nationwide

Senate Energy Committee Bypasses Rim of the Valley Hearing. They held a hearing
several years ago before people began to wake up about what Rim of the Valley really
meant.

Committee has failed to even look at a map of Rim of the Valley. So they will be
voting completely in the Dark when they come back from Easter Vacation.

No one in the Senate has seen a map of the Rim of the Valley. Parks Committee staff
was given enough maps for all the members of the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee but they were never handed out.

Look below to see if your Senator is on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
You can reach any Senator at (202) 224-3121. Ask his staff to get a copy of the Rim
of the Valley Map. They can get it by calling Tom Lillie at the Parks Subcommittee
at (202) 224-4971. There are only enough maps for the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee Members.

You can see a quality map by going to www.landrights.org

The New Rim Of The Valley Park Study Bill is Being Rushed Through Congress - Would
Convert LA area National Forests Into National Parks

Urgent Action Required

The Massive Rim Of The Valley Fire Hazard Moving In The Senate

It is called Rim Of The Valley National Park (S 2739).

Rim of the Valley will place a Park Service noose around the necks of 169,000
threatened landowners. 158,000 in LA County and 11,000 in Ventura County.

The regulatory cost is staggering. Landowners have no idea what is coming at them.

$2 Billion is our projected land acquisition cost but it could easily cost much
more. That will make it the most expensive national park in history. It will
jeopardize funding for other parks nationwide needing money for maintenance for
years to come.

The Park Service is approximately $10 billion behind in basic health and
safety-deferred maintenance. At some point we need to take care of what we’ve got
rather than keep adding and adding.

It is amazing that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is doing so little
research when over $2 billion plus of your money is at stake.

The Park Service is a bad neighbor when it comes to fire. They will not allow you
to clean your land of fire hazard brush and will not clean their own ground. Giving
the Park Service control imposes a huge fire hazard on any landowners near the Rim
of the Valley.
Rim of the Valley is adjacent to and attached to the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area. That area’s real claim to fame is that it burns every five years.

——-Call Now. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is at this time not
going to hold a hearing on the Rim Of The Valley Land Grab.

The Energy and Natural Resources Committee is bypassing a hearing because the
Committee has passed Rim of the Valley before. You need to request a new hearing.
They did not even have maps before. ALRA has now has made large color maps
available.

It is urgent that you call both your Senators plus the Members of the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee listed below. Send them e-mail or fax also.

It is critical that you call both your Senators today to oppose S 2739. Any
Senator may be called at (202) 224-3121. Ask that they request the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee to hold a new hearing on S 2739, the Rim of the Valley
bill.

——-The only way for local groups to fight local issues when threatened by Federal
national proposals is to band together nationwide and support each other.

You, by calling, e-mailing or faxing today, will save people who will then be there
tomorrow to help you when you are personally threatened if you are not now.

Rim of the Valley is a giant new National Park being slipped by Congress as a
supposed addition to the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

——-It will include and threaten 158,000 private parcels in Los Angeles County and
11,000 in Ventura County. These are in addition to those landowners trapped in the
existing Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

There are many National Forest Cabin Permittees in the proposed area. Large
portions of the Angeles National Forest will be converted into National Park. The
San Bernardino and Las Padres National Forests are also threatened with at least
partial national park status. Call any cabinowners you know to urge that they
oppose S 2739. The Park Service does not allow permit cabins.

(Energy and Natural Resources Fax and e-mail addresses listed below). It is
especially important to call or write if your Senator is on the list. A fax is the
best way to send your letter.

Background on Rim of the Valley:

S 2739 (Rim of the Valley) would surround the:
parts of the Santa Monica Mountains;
the Santa Susanna Mountains;
the San Gabriel Mountains;
the Verdugo Mountains;
the San Rafael Hills;
and adjacent connector areas to the Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests.

In California with a huge New National Park area.

S 2739 and the Rim of the Valley will cost over $2 billion making it the most
expensive park in American history. That is the way Santa Monica Mountains NRA
started out. It was only supposed to cost $155 million in 1978. Today it is over
$1 billion and continuing skyward.

S 2739 is called the Rim of the Valley Corridor Study Act and would study expanding
the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area by adding a corridor of all the
mountains surrounding the San Fernando Valley, La Crescenta Valley, Santa Clarita
Valley, Simi Valley and Conejo Valley.

Don’t be confused when they call it a study. If this bill passes, Congress will ask
the giant Park Service bureaucracy if they want more land, more money, more power
and more people. What do you think any self-respecting bureaucracy is going to say?
Of course they want it. They always want more.

The Rim of the Valley consists of parts of the Santa Monica Mountains, the Santa
Susanna Mountains, the San Gabriel Mountains, the Verdugo Mountains, the San Rafael
Hills, and adjacent connector areas to the Los Padres and San Bernardino National
Forests according to Congressmen Adam Schiff.

The study area will encompass 491,518 acres. That is nearly three and a half times
the size of the existing Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area that is
153,750 acres and over two thirds the size of Yosemite. All that in an urban area.

You can see a map by going to www.landrights.org Just click on the link on the
website homepage.

This map was originally produced by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. They
have deliberately tried to hide the full impact of S 2739 by how they have shaded
the areas in the map. They call it a corridor but it actually surrounds and
includes huge areas of land. The Park Service does not like private land within
their boundaries. They will try to buy it all over time.

**Be sure to call your local newspapers to get them to print a map of the giant new
Rim of the Valley National Park Service area.

This is part of the giant plan promoted by the Park Service, the Nature Conservancy
and the Wildlands Project for a nationwide series of corridors linking all the parks
and forests in the United States. This has the potential for a massive takeover of
National Forest and other Federal lands by the Park Service.

Don’t dismiss this because it is in California. If they pass this proposal, some
Members of Congress will be emboldened to add new and expanded areas where you live.

S 2739 will put a circle of Park Service control around tens of thousands of
landowners. Anyone familiar with how the Park Service works knows that is the
beginning of ratcheting down the regulatory controls and land
acquisition. They want it all eventually. This writer was told by the Assistant
Secretary of Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks in the Carter Administration in
1978: “If Congress puts a circle around it, we’re going to own it all.”

The Rim of the Valley will become a huge fire hazard. The Park Service will prevent
landowners from removing vegetation and brush for fire protection and will not clean
their land. The result will be fires even more massive than you are suffering now.
This is not speculation. This is how the Park Service presently manages the Santa
Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

More Action Items:

——-A. You need to call, fax and e-mail both your Senators in opposition to S 2739
immediately. Every Senator can be reached at (202) 224-3121. Ask for the fax and
e-mail of the staff person who handles park issues when you call. Send them a
one-page message stating your opposition to S2739. This is critical.

——-B. Ask both your Senators to hold a new hearing on S 2739 where they actually
examine the map of the proposed area and get a cost analysis.

——-C. Be sure to go to www.landrights.org for a copy of the map of the Rim of
the Valley. You can enlarge it to make it more readable. Make sure you ask your
local newspapers to print a map of the proposed Rim of the Valley National Park
Service area. People have no idea what is coming at them. If you don’t have the
equipment to enlarge it, take a disk with the file off the web to Kinkos and they
can do it.

Call any Senator at (202) 224-3121.

Here is the full Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Write them asking them why
the never looked at the map of Rim of the Valley. Ask them to remove Rim of the
Valley from the Omnibus Parks Bill (S2739).
(Note: when you see a space in the e-mail, it is an underscore.)

Republicans: (Minority)

Pete Domenici (R-NM) - Fax: (202) 228-3261 - E-mail: edwardhild@domenici.senate.gov
Larry Craig (R-ID) - Fax: (202) 228-1067 - E-mail: darren
parker@craig.senate.gov
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) - Fax: (202) 224-5301 - E-mail:
isaacedwards@murkowski.senate.gov
Richard Burr (R-NC) (Ranking Minority Member) - Fax: (202) 228-2981 - E-mail:
natasha
hickman@burr.senate.gov
Jim DeMint (R-SC) - Fax: (202) 228-5143 - E-mail: matthoskins@demint.senate.gov
Bob Corker (R¬TN) - Fax: (202) 228-0566 - E-mail: todd
womack@corker.senate.gov
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) - Fax: (202) 224-3149 - E-mail: alanhanson@sessions.senate.gov
Jim Bunning (R-KY) - Fax: (202) 228-1373 - E-mail: kim
dean@bunning.senate.gov;
lessealy@barasso.senate.gov
Gordon Smith (R-OR) - Fax: (202) 228-3997 - E-mail: rob
epplin@gsmith.senate.gov
Mel Martinez (R-FL) - Fax: (202) 228-5172 - E-mail: michaelzehr@martinez.senate.gov
John Barrasso (R-WY) - Fax: (202) 224-1724 - E-mail:
bryn
stewart@barrasso.senate.gov; shawn_Whitman@barrasso.senate.gov

Democrats: (Majority)

Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) (Chairman) - Fax: 202) 224-2852 - E-mail:
trudyvincent@bingaman.senate.gov
Daniel Akaka (D-HI) - Fax: (202) 224-2126 - E-mail: bonni
berge@akaka.senate.gov
Byron Dorgan (D-ND) - Fax: (202) 224-1193 - E-mail: geoffplague@dorgan.senate.gov
Ron Wyden (D-OR) Chairman - Fax: (202) 228-2717 - E-mail:
Joshua
sheinkman@wyden.senate.gov
Tim Johnson (D-SD) - Fax: (202) 228-5765 - E-mail:
toddstubbendieck@johnson.senate.gov
Mary Landrieu (D-LA) - Fax: (202) 224-9735 - E-mail:
janet
woodka@landrieu.senate.gov
Maria Cantwell (D-WA) - Fax: (202) 228-0514 - E-mail:
michaeldaum@cantwell.senate.gov
Ken Salazar (D-CO) - Fax: (202) 228-5036 - E-mail: grant
leslie@salazar.senate.gov
Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - Fax: (202) 228-2197 - E-mail:
karissawillhite@menendez.senate.gov
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) - Fax: (202) 228-1371 - E-mail: jim
stowers@lincoln.senate.gov
Bernard Sanders (I-VT) - Fax: (202) 228-0776 - E-mail: petertyler@sanders.senate.gov
Jon Tester (D-MT) - Fax: (202) 224-8593 - E-mail: bridget
walsh@tester.senate.gov

If S 2739 passes and the huge expansion eventually passes Congress it will:

——-1. Will threatened thousands of landowners and recreation users.

——-2. Create a huge fire hazard. The Park Service will not allow you to clear
your brush and they will not clear theirs. The result could be a disaster.

——-3. By our estimate, it will cost over $2 billion dollars and perhaps a great
deal more to carry out their grandiose land acquisition and regulatory scheme. It
will become a never-ending money pit with Congress having to keep up with public
expectations.

——-4. Would study expanding the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area
by adding a corridor encircling large portions of all the mountains surrounding the
San Fernando Valley, La Crescenta Valley, Santa Clarita Valley, Simi Valley and
Conejo Valley in California on the North side of Los Angeles.

——-5. S 2739 includes part of the Santa Monica Mountains, the Santa Susanna
Mountains, the San Gabriel Mountains, the Verdugo Mountains, the San Rafael Hills,
and adjacent connector areas to the Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests.

——-6. The study area will encompass 491,518 acres, that’s two-thirds the size of
Yosemite. It’s nearly three and a half times the size of the existing Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area which is 153,750 acres. It will run
approximately 300 miles giving it a huge scope.

——-7. Will control land use within and adjacent corridors by threatening eminent
domain (condemnation) of the land. That is how they prevent
building and lots of other uses. ALRA saved a ski area in Maine recently that had
been continually threatened with condemnation.

——-8. S 2739 will ultimately dilute the Park Service budget meaning less care for
other parks.

——-9. The combined length of these corridors is likely to run as much as 300
miles long. The Santa Monica Mountains Corridor NRA is only about 40 miles long and
is already costing over one billion dollars.

——-10. The corridors will be like a series of giant nooses put around the necks
of the many communities in the encircled areas. Economic and social activities will
be greatly inhibited. Access people now take for granted will be lost forever.
Frankly, the Park Service has a record of being a very bad neighbor. Go to
www.landrights.org for several socio-cultural assessments and histories of Park
Service abuses.

——-11. There will be a massive increase in regulations controlling private and
community activities with the encircled areas. S 2739 will interdict transportation
corridors, which will mean new bridges and passageways for wildlife corridors
throughout the region.

——12. They’ll use the wildlife as an excuse for substantial new regulatory
controls. They’ll build bridges for the wildlife over the freeways but you’ll be
locked out. For example over 90% of Yosemite is now closed off to most of the
public. They are closing campgrounds and parking lots and soon you will have to
take a bus just to get into the park.

——13. Force the closure of hundreds of miles of exiting roadways substantially
reducing motorized recreation.

——14. It will be hard or impossible to get communication towers and other
utilities installed in these corridors.

——15. They say they will put in hiking trails, but the area is so hot in the
summer that very little hiking takes place. There is virtually no water. In the
winter, it becomes floods and mud. At the existing Santa Monica Mountains NRA they
have to actually bus people out of the center of the City of Los Angeles in order to
increase visitorship. People who have a choice don’t spend much time there.

——16. Movie and TV companies who use these areas for films will be prevented from
doing their normal work. The Park Service likes naturalness. They don’t really
like people. They just want enough to justify their budget.

——17. Creation of the Rim of the Valley Corridor could require tougher Class I
air standards that would have a negative impact on private industry throughout the
San Fernando Valley and the other areas. If you like the notion of viewsheds and
soundsheds, you love the Rim of the Valley Corridor bill.

——18. The House has not held a hearing on S 2739. They did hold a hearing on
another very different bill a year ago. The Senate held a hearing but had no one
testify against the bill. That’s fairness for you. You would think they would want
to hear from both sides. So Congress is really operating in the dark.

——19. Even though there is very little water, what exists is valuable. S 347
will give the National Park Service a large measure of control over all the high
ground around these valleys. Historically that means the agency uses that power to
interdict the goals of local communities and business.

——20. The Park Service also seeks to keep communities from allowing landowners to
use their land by threatening the cities and towns with the loss of Federal funds of
all kinds.

Why is the Rim of the Valley Corridor bill (S 2739) so important?

It will threaten thousands of landowners and permittees in the mountains around Los
Angeles. It will threaten private owners in the Angeles National Forest and may
threaten owners in the Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests as well.

When the Park Service takes over a Forest Service area, landowners and recreation
users lose. The Park Service does not like private uses and has almost no permit
system.

S 2739 will set a standard nationwide for corridor and greenway bills involving many
urban and rural communities. It will likely lead to other corridor measures in
other National Forests. If you like the notion of viewsheds and soundsheds, you
love the Rim of the Valley Corridor bill. If they pass it in California, it will
be hard to stop in other areas.

S 2739 is a “study” bill. But it is much cheaper and easier to stop the study bill
than to stop the authorizing bill that will most certainly come later. They are
using S 2739 because that is the Senate version of the bill introduced and passed
through the Senate by Diane Feinstein (D-CA).

If you don’t live anywhere near Los Angeles, why should you care? Because these
studies are the first step toward a Federal land grab in your area. They are the
camels nose under the tent.

Even if you live in Arizona, Washington, Idaho or Colorado, a few calls to your
Senator can make a huge difference. As few as ten letters in a Congressional
district will get that Senator thinking about why he should vote for this bill.
Usually he will get very few calls in support from greens in your state. So a few
calls like yours really count.

Any Senator can all be reached at the same number by calling the Capital Switchboard
at (202) 225-3121. Ask for the Senator you are calling when the switchboard
operator answers. When their staff answers the phone, ask for the person who handles
National Parks or Resources Committee matters or S 2739.

S 2739 is really creating a monster new national park. The size is huge and the
cost will be even larger. The size could be a series of corridors with a total
length as long as 300 miles and costing you, the taxpayer over $2 billion dollars.

Ultimately what the Park Service will want is a giant network of corridors, some
very wide, covering all the mountains around the North West part of Los Angeles and
part of Ventura Counties. Some of these corridors will likely mean the conversion
of multiple-use land managed by the US Forest Service to the National Park Service.

The Park Service is famous for its land grabbing and regulatory technique. One
example is that Santa Monica Mountains NRA is well known for being a park where the
Park Service was sued and ultimately had to pay large damages for initiating a raid
against an innocent rancher, Donald Scott, who was killed in the raid. All because
the Park Service wanted his land.

The Park Service has been a nightmare for landowners in Santa Monica Mountains.
Relations with landowners and others who traditionally used the area have always
been bad and continue that way.

It was supposed to be a “string of pearls” with most land left in private hands.
But that concept largely went away as the Santa Monica Mountains NRA gradually grew
and more landowners were wiped out.

The National Park Service promised they would protect private property owners and
that most private land would not be purchased. However, they continually expand
their appetite so the scope and cost of the NRA just keeps increasing.

The Santa Monica Mountains NRA surrounded thousands of landowners preventing them
from getting access. Then they bought out the major landowners and just left the
small landowners to twist in the wind. Numerous complaints have been filed about
the Park Service creating hardships and doing nothing about it.

That is what will happen in the Rim of the Valley Corridor. It will start with a
small scope and gradually increase over time until the Federal Government and the
National Park Service take over huge portions of the mountains around Los Angeles.

The proposed new Park Service area is likely to cost over $2 billion in additional
dollars. That could be grossly understated. The funding required would detract
from existing National Parks that are already strapped for funds for basic health,
safety and visitor services.

If you live in California, call at least three friends to ask them to call, fax and
e-mail. Call as many as you can.

If you live in another state, you should still call your friends and allies and get
them to call their Senators and send e-mails and faxes opposing this giant and very
expensive land grab - S 2739. Refer to it as the Rim of The Valley and the Parks
Omnibus Bill.

Chuck Cushman
American Land Rights Association
PO Box 400
Battle Ground, WA 98604
(360) 687-3087
ccushman@landrights.org


0 Comments

March 29th, 2008

HB 1278 Sent Back To Committee

The Rocky Mountain News Reports:

“The House sent back to committee a bill aimed at restricting RTD from using land it condemns as part of FasTracks for private commercial development, a move backers fear is meant to let it die without debate.”

Read the full story: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/29/bill-aimed-at-restricting-rtd-on-property-issues/


0 Comments

March 28th, 2008

FasTracks delays release of draft EIS

FasTracks delays release of draft EIS
By Ben Moger-Williams of Metro West newspapers

Changes in the alignment of RTD’s FasTracks North Metro Corridor delayed the release of its draft Environmental Impact Statement, a FasTracks spokeswoman said.

The release of the draft EIS has been pushed back by about six months due to developments in FasTracks’ negotiations with Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroads, said Karen Morales. The statement, originally due to be issued this spring, will not be available until the end of this year, she said.

Part of the negotiations that fell through included the controversial relocation of a Union Pacific rail yard. The proposal initially led a group of residents to form the opposition group, “Say No To UPRR.” The group opposed the relocation project due to concerns about noise, pollution, traffic and other problems.

Morales said that the proposed relocation of Union Pacific’s classification yard and intermodal transfer facility to a site between Brighton and Fort Lupton is no longer on the table.

“Initially in our negotiations with Union Pacific, we were looking at kind of a big umbrella package of properties,” Morales said. “Part of that package included the relocation of their current facility just north of downtown Denver out to Fort Lupton. That is no longer part of that package.”

Morales said that the proposal from Union Pacific was “beyond the budget” for FasTracks.

The collapse of the negotiations caused FasTracks to tweak its alignment of the southern part of the North Metro Corridor, a proposed 18-mile railway between Denver Union Station and 162nd Avenue. The corridor would pass through Denver, Commerce City, Thornton, Northglenn and unincorporated Adams County.

“We’re looking at some refinements to these northern portions of the alignments coming out of Denver Union Station,” she said. “It’s some slight refinements, typically just slipping to the right or left a little bit to avoid going through those yards that aren’t being relocated now.”

The changes in the alignment mean that FasTracks must now go back and look at the environmental effects the rail system would have on the new areas.

Morales said the delay in the draft EIS will not affect the construction timeline for the North Metro Corridor, scheduled to be complete in 2017.

Find out more on the Web at www.rtd-fastracks.com.

Contact MetroWest Staff Writer Ben Moger-Williams at 303-659-2522 Ext.202, or e-mail bmoger-williams@metrowestnewspapers.com.


0 Comments

March 28th, 2008

Commissioners Voice Opposition to Pinon Canyon Expansion

From the Pueblo Chieftain:

“Pueblo County commissioners told opponents of the Pinon Canyon expansion efforts Thursday that they will approve a resolution urging the Army to go elsewhere to acquire more training land.”

Read the full story here: http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1206684000/5


0 Comments

March 27th, 2008

“Ex-[RTD]Chief Blasts Condemnations”

Kevin Flynn of the Rocky Mountain News Reports:

“Former RTD board chairman Jack McCroskey condemned RTD’s proposed use of condemnation for FasTracks corridors in which the transit agency intends to solicit private commercial redevelopment on station sites.”
Read the full story here:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/27/fastracks-tactics-assailed/


0 Comments

March 27th, 2008

Pueblo County Commissioners Condemn Pinon Condemnation Efforts

From Not 1 More Acre’s Hugh Lamberton and Jean Aguerre:

Pueblo County Commissioners Condemn Piñon Canyon Plan

Board Agrees to Press Colorado Congressional Delegation

PUEBLO, Colorado (Thursday, March 27): The Pueblo Board of County
Commissioners today flagged its unanimous support for a resolution
opposing Pentagon plans to massively expand the Piñon Canyon Maneuver
Site between Trinidad, Walsenburg and La Junta, and also indicated that
it would pressure Colorado’s Congressional delegation on the issue.

The board made those commitments after hearing a presentation from
members of the broad grassroots coalition fighting the expansion who
warned that the loss of hundreds of thousand of acres of generational
family ranchlands will destroy the strong economic and social
connections between Pueblo and its neighbors across the southeast.

Commissioners Anthony Nuñez, Jeff Chostner and John Cordova said they
were unified in their strong opposition to expansion and would urge the
state’s Congressional delegation to continue its support for a federal
law blocking funding of any and all aspects of the Pentagon’s plan.
That legislation – authored by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-4th CD) – was
signed into law by President Bush on December 26, 2007.

Board chairman Commissioner Nuñez said he had long opposed the
expansion and that there was no reason it should take place in southern
Colorado. Commissioner Chostner – a retired Air Force officer with 22
years of active duty – said the expansion was “unnecessary”, would
destroy “a Western way of life” and that it would seal southeastern
Colorado off from the public. He said there was little evidence that
significant economic development associated with the expansion would
extend beyond El Paso County and he was very skeptical of any plans
involving the military leasing ranchland.

The expansion opponents who addressed the board were: Ross Vincent, a
Pueblo resident and senior policy adviser for the Sierra Club; Mack
Louden, a fourth-generation rancher, southeastern Colorado businessman
and board member of expansion opposition group Not 1 More Acre!; and
Kennie Gyurman, who lives next to the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site and
whose family lost 5000 acres through condemnation by the military when
the site was created in the early 1980s.

Mr. Vincent told the commissioners that the people of Pueblo care
deeply about protecting the generational family ranches of the area and
the lifestyle and livelihoods they support, and about preserving the
ability of those families to continue living and working sustainably
with the land.

“We rely on the quality of the economic benefit and the jobs we have
here in Pueblo because we serve as the hub for many of the goods and
services the ranching communities of southeastern Colorado need,” he
said.

Mr. Vincent also stressed the need to protect the region’s “incredible
dinosaur tracks, native American rock art, and extraordinary historic
sites”, as well as “the largest intact shortgrass prairie ecosystem
left in the Great Plains.”

He said the people of the region had strong memories of Army promises
of no expansion when ranching families were ousted from their land to
create the PCMS. “Never again, we were told. Now they are back for
more, claiming it will improve our lives when, in fact, it will destroy
our lives.”

“And some of us also remember the results of past grand federal plans
for economic development on the southern Colorado plains. The
government’s support for plowing the prairie in the early 20th century
brought us the dust bowl of the 1930s – probably the greatest economic
and environmental disaster in our nation’s history. Those who would
displace generational family ranchers in order to scar the grasslands
with high-tech weapons and tanks appear to have forgotten that lesson
from history.”

Mr. Louden emphasised the depth of the economic and social connections
between Pueblo and the ranchers and communities of the southeast,
between fourth- and fifth-generation ranchers and fourth- and
fifth-generation business owners. He spoke about the long history of
people coming to Pueblo for medical care, education, shopping,
supplies, entertainment – all in a city they viewed as part of their
community.

“This isn’t all about money – some things are more important,” Mr.
Louden said.

Mr. Gyurman said political rhetoric about “win-win” situations would
prove just as empty as the Army’s promises of no expansion when it
created the PCMS in the 1980s.

“There is no win-win for the rancher or property owner forced off their
land with a condemnation action,” Mr. Gyurman said. “If we are forced
off our land, not only will customers and tax-paying citizens be lost,
but a part of the community will be lost, because we are a part of the
Pueblo community.”


0 Comments

March 27th, 2008

Important Information on the Clean Water Act

From the Land Rights Network:

Senate Sets New Wetlands (S 1870) Clean Water Act Hearing April 9

Do You Want The Corps Of Engineers In Your Backyard? You’ll get that result of S
1870 passes the Senate and Congress.

Please Send Senate your Testimony On Clean Water Act (Wetlands)

Fax and E-mail Deadline Tuesday, April 8th.

——-You can watch the hearing on the Internet by going to:
http://epw.senate.gov

——-Look below to see if your Senator is on the Environment and Public Works
Committee. Find your Senator and send his staff person a copy of the testimony you
send in. Send it to everyone on the Committee if you can.

This hearing is laying the groundwork for movement of the Oberstar-Feingold Wetlands
Clean Water Act Corps of Engineers bill (S 1870) and HR 2421). It is critical
explain to the Committee what a hardship the Corps of Engineers has placed on
landowners over the past 30 years using their interpretation of the Clean Water Act.

The Supreme Court clarified the issue with two decisions, the SWANCC decision and
the Rapanos Decision that clarified the regulatory picture on Wetlands and Corps of
Engineers Permits.

Before those decisions, the regulatory picture has never been clear.

This is particularly true prior to the SWANCC Supreme Court decision that is what
proponents of the bill claim is the reason for enactment of the bill.

They want to go back to the old top down command and control Corps of Engineers land
grab permitting process.

New Senate Wetlands (S 1870) Bill Gives Corps Control Over You

This hearing is an opportunity for you to submit testimony opposing
S 1870, the new Feingold - Oberstar Wetlands Land Grab Bill. This is the Senate
Version of HR 2421 by Rep. Oberstar in the House.

Immediate Action Required - You must take action now.

Below is a modified Senate Testimony Questionnaire for you to send to your Senator
and the Members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 expansion of Corps Of Engineers power.

——-Congress is considering expanding the power of the Clean Water Act of 1972 to
include all waters of the United States and not limit it to navigable waters as is
currently the law under two Supreme Court Decisions.

——-This is a massive threat to all private property in America. It also threatens
the use of Federal land.

——-Besides private property, it threatens grazing, forestry, mining and many other
uses on private and Federal land.

——-You should send testimony to the Senate whether or not you sent testimony for
the hearing to the House.

The House is also holding a new hearing on April 16th. We’ll send you more
information about that later.

S 1870, and its House version HR 2421, is the biggest threat to private property
since CARA and actually affects far more land and people.

——-Action Items Below

We call S 1870 the National Wetlands Corps of Engineers - Land Grab Bill.

(It’s real name is the Clean Water Restoration Act but it has very little to do with
clean water or restoration. It is mostly about land use control and expanding the
power and reach of the Corps of Engineers use of the Clean Water Act of 1972 to
regulate almost all private property.

What it really does is give the Corps of Engineers control over nearly all private
property in America by changing the definition of “wetlands” under the Clean Water
Act of 1972 vastly expanding the regulatory reach of the Corps of Engineers over
private property.

Take the Testimony Questionnaire below, save it to your word processor, edit it to
say how you feel, and then e-mail it back to the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee listed below. Be sure to mail it to the staff too.

——-Also e-mail it to both your own Senators. If you don’t have their e-mail or
fax, you may call any Senator at (202) 224-3121. Ask for the staff person who
handles the Environment and Public Works Committee, wetlands, the Clean Water Act or
the Corps of Engineers. Ask for their e-mail and fax and send your testimony to
that staff person. . Keep their name and contact information for future reference.

This Testimony is for the new Senate hearing on the Clean Water Act set for
Wednesday, April 9th.

Your testimony will count for the official record if you e-mail or fax it in by
Tuesday, April 8th.

——-You may print out a formatted version of the Testimony Questionnaire that is
below by going to www.landrights.org.

——-Urgent Action Required

The Testimony Questionnaire is designed so you can simply save it into your word
processing program, edit it with your comments, and then send it to the Senator
listed on the Committee using your e-mail program. Be sure to edit out or cut off
the parts that are our instructions and are not part of the testimony. We’ve
marked them so please read it carefully.

——-We agree with all the statements on the Testimony Questionnaire, but you don’t
have to. You can mark it Agree, Disagree or No Opinion. Or you may write comments
by every statement. This is supposed to be your testimony. Your Senators want to
know what you think.

What is most important is that you fill out the blank space below the Statements
with your own personal comments. You may get ideas and draw from the statements we
have provided or preferably write your own. Please don’t fail to fill in that large
blank space because Congress will pay far more attention to your testimony when you
do.

The Testimony Questionnaire is rated at a much higher value by your Senator if you
write your own personal thoughts in the space provided after the section with the
statements with Agree, Disagree, or No Opinion.

Please send a copy of your Testimony, no matter how you feel about the issue, to
American Land Rights at ccushman@landrights.org

Write in the Subject line: Copy of Testimony Sent to US Senate. Otherwise we
won’t know whether you sent it to Congress or not. And we would like to know how you
feel about the issues. You do not have to send a copy to us.

 If you receive this message late, send your testimony anyway, as the Committee

will often accept testimony late.

——-Testimony Questionnaire - Please be sure to edit the Testimony Questionnaire so
our e-mail information and instructions are removed.

——-See Action Items Below.

——-Updated — Committee Staff Members do change and we have corrected several
additional committee e-mail addresses below. If you find e-mail does not work, call
the Senator’s office at (202) 224-3121 and ask for the staff person who handles the
Environment and Public Works Committee, wetlands or the Clean Water Act. Then ask
for the correct e-mail.

Edit out all above this line before e-mailing this message.




  • -

    • ——-Fax, and E-mail Deadline Tuesday, April 8th.
      Actual hearing date is April 9th.
      Congressional Testimony Questionnaire

Testimony For The Record
The Clean Water Act and
S 1870 — Clean Water Restoration Act
(National Wetlands Corps of Engineers Land Use Control Bill)

Honorable __________________ US Senate Fill in
the name of your Senator and Committee Chairman Senator Barbara Boxer.

To be submitted for the record of the April 9th Senate Hearing on the Clean Water
Restoration Act (modifies the Clean Water Act of 1972)

This hearing is laying the groundwork for movement in the Senate of the Feingold
bill (S 1870), the Clean Water Restoration Act, and therefore it is important to
have Committee Members understand that the Clean Water Act regulatory picture has
never been clear, particularly prior to the SWANCC Supreme Court legal decision
which is what proponents of the bill claim is the reason for enactment of the bill.

S 1870, The Clean Water Restoration Act, is really a massive Federal land Corps of
Engineers land and water power grab. It will use “wetlands” to take control over
every farm, ranch, and piece of private property with any water on it or even if the
landowner only engage in activities that might affect water.

It expands the authority of the Federal government under the Clean Water Act of 1972
to include all waters of the U.S. and activities affecting these waters.

It will give the Corps of Engineers control over most private property.

In the words of Reed Hopper of Pacific Legal Foundation, lead attorney in a landmark
U.S. Supreme Court victory, “…this bill pushes the limits of federal power to an
extreme not matched by any other law, probably in the history of this country.”

Below are my concerns and testimony regarding S 1870, the inappropriately named
Clean Water Restoration Act. It has little to do with clean water and is mostly
about land use control.

Please allow this Testimony to be submitted for the record for any additional
hearings to be held on the Clean Water Act, S 1870, and the Clean Water Restoration
Act.

Please consider a photocopy of this document as valid as the
original and include my testimony for the official record.

Signature ________________________________
Print Your Name ______________________________


Dear Private Property and Multiple-Use Advocate:

You must send your testimony in immediately. No the hearing date is Wednesday,
April 9th and you can expect a vote on S 1870 shortly thereafter. It is imperative
that you act now. The Clean Water Restoration Act may be the biggest threat to
property rights and local control yet.

The bill would overturn two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that favored landowners and
local government. It would give federal agencies and the Corps of Engineers in
particular almost unlimited control over land, water and people.

Reed Hopper, lead attorney in the latest Supreme Court victory for landowners said
“…this bill pushes the limit of federal power to an extreme not matched by any
other law, probably in the history of this country. Jim Burling, senior attorney
for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said “If our constitutional system of limited
federal powers means anything, we have to win on this issue.”

It is important that you fill out the following testimony questionnaire and send it
to your Senator and all those Senators on the
Environment and Public Works Committee listed below. It must be submitted by e-mail
or fax by Tuesday, April 8th, 2008 to be considered as testimony for the record for
the hearing taking place April 9th.

Please act on this as soon as you get this e-mail message. Do not put it off until
tomorrow. Tomorrow may be too late. Supporters of this bill are trying to ram S
1870 through before people like you know how dangerous it is.

Below is a Testimony Questionnaire for you to fill out and e-mail or fax back to
your Senator and the Members of the Environment and Public Works Committee in the US
Senate.

Be sure to check to see if your Senator is on the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee. This makes your Testimony even more valuable.

——-Alert — Be aware of the legal concept called “laches” or “sleeping on your
rights.” You may lose legal rights later if you fail to comment or testify on S
1870. So at least send this Testimony Questionnaire and possibly a letter opposing
S 1870. It can be as short as one page or longer.

——-In the next section you will see a series of statements about S 1870 that
American Land Rights agrees with but you don’t have to.

This Testimony Questionnaire is about helping you get your testimony to Congress.
Your Senator and the Members of the Environment and Public Works Committee want to
know what you think. It is critical that you write your responses to the statements
with your opinion and not what you think we would want you to write. You are free
to disagree with us. You can add comments to each statement or change the
statements to fit your preference.

You have a chance to change the course of history on the whole “wetlands” or Clean
Water Act and Corps of Engineers regulatory issue by filling out this Testimony
Questionnaire, writing your Senators name in the appropriate place, and e-mailing it
to all the Members of the Senate listed below.

We would appreciate it if you would send a copy to American Land Rights with the
words “copy sent to Members of the Senate in the subject line.


——-Please edit this document in your word processor and e-mail it or print it out
and fax it to your Senator and the other Members of the Environment and Public Works
Committee listed below. Your personal comments make this document more valuable.
So be sure to fill in the blank space with your own personal comments or concerns
below where the section is with the Agree-Disagree statements are listed.


—1. The jurisdiction of federal agencies under the Clean Water Act of 1972 should
remain limited to navigable waters and not expanded to include all waters of the
U.S., such as wetlands, sloughs, meadows, intermittent streams, prairie potholes,
ponds, playa lakes, mudflats and sandflats.

Agree…Disagree…No Opinion

—2. The definition of wetlands under federal jurisdiction should be limited to
those areas that are permanently wet or free flowing.

Agree…Disagree…No Opinion

—3. The Clean Water Act 1972 should not be used as a tool for national land use
controls.

Agree…Disagree…No Opinion

—4. The Clean Water Act of 1972 should not be expanded to include activities
affecting waters.

Agree…Disagree…No Opinion

—5. The U. S. Supreme Court decisions of 2001 and 2006 that ruled in favor of
local government and landowners should not be overturned by the proposed Clean Water
Restoration Act ( S 1870).

Agree…Disagree…No Opinion

—6. Mostly dry land and isolated wetlands should be excluded from federal
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act of 1972.

Agree…Disagree…No Opinion

—7. The definition of pollutants under the Clean Water Act of 1972 should not
include clean fill or natural material of any kind.

Agree…Disagree…No Opinion

—8. The term ‘discharge’ should not apply to the disturbance of soils or natural
materials.

Agree…Disagree…No Opinion

—9. Citizens cited for violation of regulations under the Clean Water Act of 1972
should not face criminal penalties.

Agree…Disagree…No Opinion

—10. National Water Quality goals should be achieved without violating
constitutionally protected property rights.

Agree…Disagree…No Opinion

—11. National Water Quality goals are best achieved by local and state governments,
rather than by federal agencies.

Agree…Disagree…No Opinion

—12. National Water Quality goals should consider priorities and costs

Agree…Disagree…No Opinion

—13. National Water Quality goals should consider regional differences in
landscapes and other ecological characteristics.

Agree…Disagree…No Opinion

—14. ‘Regulatory Takings’ that devalue private property should be compensated under
provisions of the 5th Amendment.

Agree…Disagree…No Opinion

—15. Access to and use and enjoyment of public lands and waters should be
guaranteed under provisions of the Clean Water Act.

Agree…Disagree…No Opinion

—16. ‘Environmental’ organizations have become too radical and have too much power
and influence over federal legislation.

Agree…Disagree…No Opinion

—17. The Clean Water Restoration Act and other environmental legislation is often
not about environmental protection, but about control over land, water, and people.

Agree…Disagree…No Opinion

—18. Please do not give the Corps of Engineers increased power to regulate more
private land.

Agree…Disagree…No Opinion


(Your written comments here are essential if you want Members of Congress to really
pay attention to this document. You are free to use as much space as you need.
But please write some comments
below before sending this important document to Congress.)

(If needed, use additional sheets or attach a personal letter)
To validate your comments please fill in completely (PRINT or TYPE) and be sure to
sign.
Signature_________________________________
Name____________________________________________
E-Mail___________________________________ Fax ___________________ Phone


Address_______________________________ Town______________________ State_____
Zip____________

Please do not fail to send this testimony questionnaire even if you receive it late.

Send your testimony as soon as you can. Send it by Tuesday, April 8th to the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee.


Please edit out or cut below this line before sending to your
Senator and others on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Background:

The hearing will be on the Clean Water Act but is really laying the groundwork for
movement of the Feingold-Oberstar bill (S 1870) in the Senate. It is therefore
important to have Committee Members understand that the regulatory picture has never
been clear, particularly prior to the SWANCC Supreme Court legal decision which is
what proponents of the bill claim is the reason for enactment of the bill. Write
your Senator opposing S 1870.

S 1870, The Clean Water Restoration Act, what we call the National Wetlands Corps of
Engineers Land Grab Act, is really a massive Federal land and water power grab. It
will use the Corps of Engineers regulation of “wetlands” as the pretext to take
control over every farm, ranch, and piece of private property with any water on it
or even if you only engage in activities that might affect water.

S 1870 expands the authority of the Federal government under the Clean Water Act of
1972 to include all waters of the U.S. and activities affecting these waters.

In the words of Reed Hopper of Pacific Legal Foundation, lead attorney in a landmark
U.S. Supreme Court victory, “…this bill pushes the limits of federal power to an
extreme not matched by any other law, probably in the history of this country.”

Hearing Date - April 9, 2008
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Chairman
Your E-mail and Fax Testimony Deadline is Tuesday, April 8th.

Please try to get your testimony in by Tuesday, April 8th.

——-The chief author of S 1870, titled the Clean Water Restoration Act, is Senator
Russ Feingold (D-WI). James Oberstar (D-MN) Chairman of the House Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee and the bills author in the House (HR 2421), said in
his own admission, the House bill (same wording as S 1870) is intended to overturn
two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that recently ruled in favor of local government
and local landowners on Wetlands issues. Those were the Rapanos and SWANCC
decisions.

——-In both cases, the high court ruled that the Federal government exceeded the
authority granted under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, what is
commonly called Wetlands issues under the Clean Water Act of 1972.

In the Rapanos, a Michigan landowner faced steep fines and a recommended 5-year jail
sentence for moving gravel on his property, located some 20 miles from the nearest
navigable water.

Reasons To Oppose Feingold’s Wetlands Land Grab Bill (S 1870):
(This is the same as the Oberstar bill HR 2421 in the House)

——-A. S 1870 replaces the word ‘navigable’ waters under the 1972 Clean Water Act
with ‘waters of the U.S.,’ including wetlands, sloughs, ponds, meadows, prairie
potholes, sandflats, mudflats, playa lakes, and intermittent streams. This change
vastly increases the land area covered by this Wetlands—land use control
legislation.

——-B. S 1870 adds the new language ‘activities affecting these waters,’
essentially a thinly-disguised attempt at national land use control;

——-C. S 1870 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Senator Feingold is attempting to
get his way by using the popular political appeal of the nice sounding term ‘clean
water’ and by using his newly gained power as chairman of a major ‘pork committee’
to intimidate the bill’s opponents, including elected officials in his own state;

——-D. S 1870 is intended to overturn two U.S. Supreme Court wetlands cases
(SWANCC, 2001 and Rapanos, 2006) that ruled in favor of landowners and local
government;

——-E. In the later case, a Michigan landowner faced stiff fines and a possible 5
year prison sentence for moving gravel on his land located 20 miles from the nearest
navigable waterway. If you do anything on your land without permission, you could
be facing criminal penalties;

——-F. S 1870 is an attempt to control ‘non-point sources’ of water pollution,
essentially any type of significant uses—farming, logging, mining, development of
any kind, and even atmospheric deposition;

——-G. S 1870 will be also be used by environmental groups to restrict and
prohibit uses of Federal lands and waters, including and especially motorized
recreational uses;

——-H. S 1870 will result in endless litigation, unacceptable permitting delays,
and will be a severe blow to property rights and local control;

——-I. There are serious constitutional concerns with S 1870, and states should
not relinquish control of natural resources to the federal government;

——-J. Many of the co-sponsors of S 1870 have supported it because of the
political appeal of the term “clean water”. They fail to understand the incredible
regulatory abuses imposed by the Corps of Engineers under the old Clean Water Act
before the Supreme Court fixed the problem. Of course, the land grabbers in the
Senate understand all too well and want the Corps of Engineers to get those powers
back and are using S 1870 to do it.

——-K. S 1870 could be the biggest threat to freedom and property rights ever!!
As Jim Burling, senior attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation said recently, “If
our constitutional system of limited federal powers means anything, we have to win
on this issue.”

Action Items:

——-1. Your Senator may be on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
listed below. He or she will eventually vote on whether this giant S 1870 land
wetlands land grab should go forward when S 1870 comes to the floor of the full
Senate. You need to call, fax and e-mail both your Senators with intensity over the
next week opposing S 1870. Call any Senator at (202) 224-3121.

——-2. Please call, e-mail and fax your Senator and ask him or her to oppose S
1870, this new Federal power grab. You may call any Senator at (202) 224-3121. Ask
them to call and write Members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
to oppose S 1870 and ask them to send you a copy of their letter.

——-3. The deadline for testimony is Tuesday, April 8th. You must deluge your
Senators with calls immediately. Get your friends, neighbors and business
associates to call. Forward this e-mail as widely as you can.

——-4. Call, fax and e-mail each Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee in opposition to S 1870. We have provided an updated and corrected staff
and e-mail list below. Staff is always changing. If e-mail does not work, call the
staff member to get the current e-mail. Any Senator can be called at (202)
224-3121. This is a little work and you don’t have much time. Failure to defeat S
1870 would be a disaster for private property rights and you.

——-5. Ask any organizations or groups you are part of to fax or e-mail a letter
opposing S 1870. Make sure they send you a copy and if you would, send us a copy
too.

——-6. You can send testimony for the record to the following addresses. Send
your Testimony to both the Majority (Democrats) and Minority (Republicans).

——-Reminder — Be aware of the legal concept called “laches” or “sleeping on your
rights.” You may lose legal rights later if you fail to comment or testify on S
1870. So at least send a letter opposing S 1870. It can be as short as one page
or longer.

Address your testimony: (Committee Address)

Honorable Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
US Senate
SD-456 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510.
(202) 224-8832
Hearings: (202) 224-1179
Fax: (202) 224-1273
E-mail: guest@epw.senate.gov

Address a second copy of your testimony to:
Honorable James Inhoff, Ranking Minority Member
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
US Senate
SD-456 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
E-mail it to: mike_freese@epw.senate.gov

Because of the Anthrax postal inspections, mail to Congress can be slowed by several
weeks. Mailed testimony will not get there in time. You are safer to fax or e-mail
your testimony. The Committee fax number is (202) 224-1273. E-mail:
guest@epw.senate.gov. Be sure to e-mail it to the staff people listed below to make
sure they get it in case any e-mail does not work. Call (202) 224-8832 if that
e-mail address fails to work.

——-7. Call, fax and e-mail Barbara Boxer, Chairman of the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee in the Senate at her personal office. Honorable Barbara
Boxer, US Senate, Washington, DC 20510. Fax: (415) 956-6701. Send e-mail to
Senator Boxer care of the following staff persons: bettinaPoirier@epw.senate.gov;
ken
kipocis@epw.senate.gov; erik_olson@epw.senate.gov

——-8. Call, Fax and e-mail James Inhofe, Ranking Minority Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee. Key EPW Committee Minority Staff: Andrew Wheeler at
andrewwheeler@epw.senate.gov, Mikefreese@epw.senate.gov and Ellen Brown at
ellen_brown@inhofe.senate.gov

——-9. Send a copy of your testimony to both your Senators. The Senate version is
S 1870 and is worded exactly like the Oberstar HR 2421 in the House. You must
forward this e-mail to as many friends and business associates as possible.

——-10. Ask organizations or groups in your State to send letters by fax or e-mail
opposing S 1870. Especially those involved in farming, ranching, and anyone who
owns private land. Get copies of all the letters or resolutions to all the Members
of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee listed below. Send them
to ALRA as well.

——-11. Call your local representative of the American Farm Bureau to urge them to
go all out against S 1870. Ask to be put on any special mailing lists the Farm
Bureau may be sending out. Send us the contact information, phone number and e-mail
of your local American Farm Bureau Representative. Ask for a copy of a letter from
the Farm Bureau to Senator Barbara Boxer opposing S 1870.

——-12. Call your local County Commissioners. Get their e-mail address and forward
them a copy of this e-mail. Ask them to e-mail, write or call both your Senators
opposing S 1870.

——-13. Call your local state Representative and Senator. Ask them to call,
write, fax or e-mail both your US Senators opposing S 1870.

——-14. No matter where you live, it is critical that you notify organizational
leaders as well as average citizens to have them send letters and pass resolutions
to send to Senators Barbara Boxer and James Inhofe as well as their own Senators
opposing S 1870.

Forward this message as widely as you can. You should hold local public meetings
and get as many people in your area as possible informed about S 1870.

American Land Rights Association is working as a team with the American Property
Coalition in Minnesota and many other organizations across America to defeat S 1870.
You can reach the American Property Coalition at donp@americanpropertycoalition.org
or mail:

American Property Coalition
161 St. Anthony Ave., Ste. 935
St. Paul, MN 55103
(651) 224-6219

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Below is the fax and e-mail list of
most of the Members of the Committee. You need to send your e-mail care of one of
their staff that we have listed. You may call any Senator at (202) 224-3121.

Chair: Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Ranking Minority: James Inhofe (R-OK)

Committee on Environment and Public Works:

Minority Members (Republicans)

——-Be sure to send your testimony to these Senators and each of their staff.

James M Inhofe (R-OK) - Phone (202) 224-6176 Fax (202) 224-5167
mike_freese@epw.senate.gov

John Warner (R-VA) - Phone (202) 224-2023 Fax (202) 224-6295 Tack Richardson at
tack_richardson@warner.senate.gov

George V Voinovich (R-OH) - Phone (202) 224-3353 Fax (202) 228-1382 Email: Lauri
Hettinger at lauri_hettinger@voinovich.senate.gov

Johnny Isakson (R-GA) - Phone (202) 224-3643 Fax (202) 228-0724 Email: Caroline
McLean at caroline_mclean@isakson.senate.gov

David Vitter (R-LA) - Phone (202) 224-4623 Fax (202) 228-5061 Email: Suzanne Gillen
at suzanne_gillen@vitter.senate.gov

Larry Craig (R-ID) - Phone (202) 224-2752 Fax (202) 228-1067 Email:
darren_parker@craig.senate.gov

Lamar Alexander (R-TN) - Phone (202) 224-4944 Fax (202) 228-3398 Email: Jessica
Holliday at Jessica_holliday@alexander.senate.gov

Christopher S Bond (R-MO) - Phone (202) 224-5721 Fax (202) 224-8149 Email: Kara
Smith at kara_smith@bond.senate.gov

John A Barrasso (R-WY) - Phone (202) 224-6441 Fax (202) 224-1724 Email: Brian
Clifford at brian_Clifford@barasso.senate.gov

Majority Members (Democrats)

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) - Phone (202) 224-3553 Fax (415) 956-6701 Email: Brian McKeon
at brian_mckeon@boxer.senate.gov

Max Baucus (D-MT) - Phone (202) 224-2651 Fax (202) 224-0515 Email: Paul Wilkins at
paul_wilkins@baucus.senate.gov

Joe Lieberman (I-CT) - Phone (202) 224-4041 Fax (202) 224-9750 Email: Fred Downey at
fred_downey@lieberman.senate.gov

Thomas R Carper (D-DE) - Phone (202) 224-2441 Fax (202) 228-2190 Email: Tom Lawler
at tom_lawler@carper.senate.gov

Hillary Clinton (D-NY) - Phone (202) 224-4451 Fax (202) 228-0282 Email: Dan Utech at
dan_utech@clinton.senate.gov

Frank R Lautenberg (D-NJ) - Phone (202) 224-3224 Fax (202) 228-4054 Email: Daniel
Rosenberg at daniel_rosenberg@lautenberg.senate.gov

Ben Cardin (D-MD) - Phone (202) 224-4524 Fax (202) 224-1651 Email: Mike Burke at
mike_burke@cardin.senate.gov

Bernard Sanders (I-VT) - Phone (202) 224-5141 Fax (202) 228-0776 Email: Jessica
Maher at Jessica_maher@sanders.senate.gov

Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN) - Phone (202) 224-3244 Fax (202) 228-2186 Email: Mark Wilson
at mark_Wilson@klobuchar.senate.gov

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) - Phone (202) 224-2921 Fax (202) 228-6362 Email: Brad
Crowell at brad_crowell@whitehouse.senate.gov

You must take urgent action to help stop S 1870. This bill will have a huge impact
on rural America, farming, ranching and private lands. No one who owns private
land is safe.

Please forward this message. The key issue is to get this Testimony Questionnaire
in hands of as many people as possible by Tuesday, April 8th. The actual hearing
date is Wednesday, April 9th. Please do your best to forward this message as widely
as possible as quickly as possible.


Your help is greatly appreciated.

Chuck Cushman
Executive Director
American Land Rights Association
(360) 687-3087
ccushman@landrights.org


0 Comments

March 26th, 2008

RTD Board Meetings Open to Public

From RTD:

“RTD Board of Director Meetings and Study Sessions are open to the public and citizens are encouraged to attend. All Board Meetings and Study Sessions are held at the RTD Administrative offices located at 1600 Blake Street in Downtown Denver. They are held in the basement of the building in rooms R, T, and D. Study Sessions are fourth Tuesday of the month and Board Meetings are every third Tuesday of the month unless otherwise noted. Study Sessions and Board Meetings begin at 5:30 p.m.

Public Participation is scheduled during Board Meetings shortly after the 5:30PM start. Public Participation allows each speaker a three (3) minute period to speak to the Board of Directors. The Board request that all cell phones and pagers be silenced during this time to eliminate disruptions.”

We’ve posted the dates of RTD board meetings on our calendar so you can be sure not to miss them!


0 Comments

March 25th, 2008

RTD Sounds Off on Recent Criticism

See Face The State’s coverage of RTD’s response to recent outrage by property owners facing condemnation disputes.


0 Comments

March 23rd, 2008

Urgent: Severe Property Rights Restrictions Could Be Imposed This Week!

From Rhonda Wallen:

There has been an alarming development unfolding in Boulder in recent weeks.
Our esteemed leaders in City Council and the beneficent overlords of the
Planning Board seem ready to enact an “Emergency” ordinance which would
limit the sizes of new homes and homes to be remodeled. The proposed new
limits set to go into effect stipulate that the “floor area ratio – FAR” of
a home, INCLUDING the garage!, be not more than 0.35. This lowers the
current limit (yes we already HAVE limits) by over 50%, in effect, making
most meaningful/useful add-ons to existing Boulder homes IMPOSSIBLE. For the
smaller lot sizes in Boulder (eg Newlands neighborhood) this translates into
~2100 square feet.

This draconian limitation is wrong on so many fronts that I scarcely know
where to begin, but I’ve attempted to summarize the most important arguments
here and make them available for those who are tired of seeing our civil
liberties slowly erode at the hands of those who “know what’s best for
Boulder.”

There are several issues surrounding what could prove to be the rapid
adoption of severe and ill-advised FAR limitations, as well as many
significant adverse and likely unintended consequences:

Moral

  • Severe FAR limits would be anti-family. Most people want to
    remodel to make themselves and their families more comfortable in the space
    they inhabit. The draconian limits as they were proposed would require
    many families to pack up their homes, try and sell their house, and move, in
    many cases out of town. This is because, to get a larger home within city
    limits, it is much cheaper to build on to an existing one than purchase a
    larger home. These limits would discourage families with children from
    moving into neighborhoods with smaller (affordable) homes, because they
    would never be able to grow the house to meet their family’s needs. Where
    are these families to go after the essentially government-imposed sale of
    their homes?

  • Some council members have fallen into the trap of believing that
    it is their place to pass judgment on, and dictate to an individual
    homeowner how much space they need or should have. It is the case in many
    different aspects of life that newer generations want or expect things
    different than the preceding one – taste in music, desire for travel, choice
    of life path/career, political views, higher education etc. etc. It should
    be perfectly acceptable to want/need something different than what our
    grandparents (curiously of the same vintage as the majority of those in
    favor of the FAR limits) had; it is NOT morally acceptable for one group
    (those who are pro-FAR limits) to force (legislate) their values onto
    another group (those of us wishing to retain the right to do what we want –
    of course in a tasteful and neighborly way— with our private property).

  • It is NOT morally acceptable to put a family in a position where
    they must chose to either live in cramped and uncomfortable conditions
    (conditions which I’m sure none of the council members would want to live
    under) or move to a new house. Homeowners who will have to move if they
    need more space because they can’t modify their homes to suit their needs
    are essentially having money stolen from them, particularly if they need to
    sell in the current soft housing market.

  • Hypocrisy is immoral. Macon Cowles home is 4800 sq feet.
    Although his FAR is just at the limit he proposes, this is only because he
    is wealthy enough to have purchased an oversized, 16,000 sq ft. lot. Oh, if
    only we could ALL afford such palatial holdings, Macon. This smacks of
    government by “Do as I say, not as I do.” Hmmm…. Perhaps he is one of Eliot
    Spitzer’s protégés?

Legal

  • In a free society, which we presume to have even in Boulder,
    individuals have both civil liberties and property rights. The new
    ordinance arguably violates both, but particularly egregiously restricts
    property rights for homeowners in a manner generally reserved for Home Owner
    Associations, self-governed bodies in which homeowners voluntarily
    participate. Is Boulder to become one giant HOA?

  • Due to a blessedly, wonderfully huge outcry of ordinary working,
    rational, taxpaying boulder citizens (whom we would like to see more of in
    the future!), the ordinance to drastically limit the FAR was not completed
    and read (presented) at the city council meeting of March 18th. But, had
    alert citizens not been on the ball, a certain member of Boulder’s City
    Council, Macon Cowles, was set to ram through this new ordinance with
    scarcely a week’s notice, no mention whatsoever on the City’s website, and
    NO public discussion. Sadly, such sneakiness is not unheard of in Boulder.
    Enacting a new ordinance without adequate or ANY opportunity for the
    affected populace to weigh in (public hearings, public readings of the bill,
    opportunity to give comments on how the new laws will impact their lives,
    etc.) is not only illegal, it is anti-American and undemocratic.

  • Certain council members are trying to accelerate the passing of
    an “Emergency” or Interim ordinance on this issue. Pushing forward an
    “Emergency” ordinance, when in fact no real, or even perceived emergency
    exits would be a complete travesty. The legal definition of “Emergency”
    involves cases where the immediate health and safety of the community is
    impacted. Clearly housing sizes pose no imminent threat. When Boulder
    County addressed this same issue, they took 18 months, during which time
    they had much public comment and participation, to arrive at their proposal.
    What is the big rush for the city of Boulder?

Financial

  • Homeowners forced to sell and relocate rather than live in
    cramped conditions, squeezing 2-3 people in a room and relegating guests to
    the air mattress in the hallway will also drive prices down if they can’t
    wait for market conditions to improve before selling. And, if a family
    needs to move to get more space, because of the extremely high cost of land
    in Boulder, they are likely moving out of town. Say goodbye to another
    taxpayer. Declining property values and fewer taxpayers translate directly
    into decreased tax revenues for the city.

  • The potentially drastic loss of property value could put some
    homeowners in danger of foreclosure. Any increase in foreclosures will
    adversely affect the local economy and would ultimately decrease city
    revenues.

  • There are dozens of homeowners (myself included) who currently
    have remodeling projects in the works. Those who have invested a great deal
    of time and money, but are not yet at the permitting stage (and potentially
    those already in the permitting process) will lose all that they have
    invested in the process thus far. Property owners should and will sue to
    have the city repay them for the time and money invested in a project which
    suddenly will cease to exist because of the “Emergency” ordinance. Can the
    city afford to (1) defend and (2) pay damages when they lose, all of the
    law-suits that the new ordinance will force to be created.

Logical

  • Some would-be environmentalists argue that “other things being
    equal, larger houses consume more resources” than smaller ones. True, but
    in Boulder, “other things” are NOT equal, and it makes no sense to argue as
    if they are. Due to the numerous green regulations AS WELL AS the
    conscientiousness of the typical Boulder resident, ANY remodels are almost
    certainly going to leave a SMALLER carbon footprint, or at least not
    increase the energy consumption level that the older, un-remodeled home had.
    These days it is not house SIZE but overall house energy EFFICIENCY that
    matters most.

  • It is illogical, not to mention extremely condescending, to
    believe that anyone who is prepared to invest the money required to develop
    a home site or remodel their home would turn around and risk having their
    money, and time, wasted by putting forth poorly thought-out proposals.

  • Some Council members believe that the emergency or interim
    ordinance is necessary because “poorly thought out plans might be pushed
    through”. It is illogical, and naive dare I say to the point of stupidity
    to believe that ANY project that is poorly thought-out or otherwise ill
    conceived would stand the remotest chance of successfully passing the level
    of scrutiny currently established by Boulder’s existing ordinances, from
    which flow the nearly innumerable, sometimes insurmountable permitting
    processes, regulations, zoning requirements, green/environmental rules and
    neighborhood feedback mechanisms already in place.

In short, it is not possible or advisable to try and legislate taste
(although we have arguably begun to do this with existing ordinances). Is
preventing the building of a few more unsightly (to some) houses really
worth the risk or in some cases the inevitability of such serious and
potentially devastating consequences? Should the particular tastes of one
group trump the property rights of another? I believe not.


Who We Are

The Independence Institute's Property Rights Project was established in 2005 to serve as a community resource on land use issues—including but not limited to—eminent domain abuse, zoning regulations, and historical designations. (Read More)

Stay Connected

Stay up to date with the latest from the Property Rights Project by subscribing to our RSS feed.