Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: forester

As we have seen in the Upper Klamath Basin, the term "willing seller" is relative. When a regulation reallocates your property to use (or nonuse) by another interest and you lose the ability to derive economic value from that property, you can become a "willing seller" pretty quick.

Here is an illustration of my point on local control. Siskiyou RCD has completed phase I of a study on how a Water Trust could be initiated in the Scott River system that is consistent with the complex, long standing adjudication and will respect underlying water use rights: http://www.sisqtel.net/~armstrng/opinion072304.htm It is anticipated that the Conservancy will rush in, buy land and water and most likely try to assert their right against lower diverters. This will cause a chain of litigation and enormous costs. The result will inevitably be an assault on ag use, not preservation.

My objections to Conservation easements are articulated here:
http://www.sisqtel.net/~armstrng/opinion032504.htm
WaterThe acquisition of water use rights wou underlying problem with Conservation Eas


18 posted on 08/01/2004 10:29:19 AM PDT by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: marsh2
As we have seen in the Upper Klamath Basin, the term "willing seller" is relative. When a regulation reallocates your property to use (or nonuse) by another interest and you lose the ability to derive economic value from that property, you can become a "willing seller" pretty quick.

I'll bet. Your prediction of the negative effects of the Conservancy using the example of water use rights sounds very plausible.

20 posted on 08/01/2004 4:33:16 PM PDT by LibertyAndJusticeForAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: marsh2; Carry_Okie; SierraWasp; hedgetrimmer; calcowgirl
The result will inevitably be an assault on ag use, not preservation.

Once ag is driven out, then what? I see my little town is the #2 dream town in America... because of the pastoral setting. Eliminating ag use in the name of enviromental protection will destroy this, and open the valley up to wide scale developement. The fact that we are now advertised as the "last best place" makes me wonder if these two issues are linked. In other words, the end goal is not preservation, the end goal is developement.

When I posed this scenario to Felice at a watershed council meeting two years ago, he replied "Subdivisions use less water then ag does." I thought that was a really curious answer at the time. Now it appears to be making sense.

When a regulation reallocates your property to use (or nonuse) by another interest and you lose the ability to derive economic value from that property, you can become a "willing seller" pretty quick.

I am currently working on appraising two private parcels surrounded by USFS land. Both were involved in land exchanges that the USFS has pulled out of. The feds are now going to purchase the property out-right. The owners of these parcels have been made into willing sellers because the USFS will not allow them to build/rebuild roads to their property.

25 posted on 08/02/2004 4:43:20 AM PDT by forester ( An economy that is overburdened by government eventually results in collapse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson