CAPR's blog

From Not Without a Fight: http://countieswithnationalforests.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/reader-view-feds-are-the-real-land-grabbers/#more-915 Reader View: Feds are the real land-grabbers Posted on November 17, 2014by ronroizen9 Editor’s note: On Oct. 27th, we published a New York Times op-ed by New Mexico’s U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich — titled, “The Land Grab Out West.” Heinrich, as readers may recall, was critical of the “state ownership of federal public lands” movement that has gained momentum in the American West in recent years, perhaps particularly in the state he represents, Utah.

The Center for Biological Diversity and Wild Earth Guardians have set the circumstances for an alarming increase in Endangered Species Listings in Washington State, with the projected possibility of 81 species by 2016 in Washington State alone. The Conflicts and Waste of valuable resources due to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have been discussed on this previous CAPR blog article: http://proprights.org/wordpress/corporate-environmentalists-break-promises/ The coming Tidal Wave will most likely have a tremendous negative consequence for water rights in Washington State, as most watershed planning is based on creating and providing water rights to rivers in order to protect endangered and potentially endangered species.

Forbes points out government's intrusion into agriculture, property rights, and functional commerce is a problem constantly looking for a solution. This thoughtful article raises questions regarding this over-reach but causes one to question where does the responsibility lie in the enforcing of respect for the rule of law and the constitutional rights Americans enjoy? The individual, courts, or congress? It seems most important advances in the preservation of property rights have begun with individuals and have been decided with the help of fine legal organizations in court. It can be assumed then that the most important defender of property rights would be the individual American Citizen. Is it not true that our constitutional rights were designed for the protection of the individual and to be guarded by the individual?

In Florida, plaintiffs claim riparian property rights. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the City of Sanibel claim that riparian rights are based in state law and are not "fundamental" rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Owners’ Counsel of America, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, Cato Institute and Rutherford Institute beg to differ with an Amici Brief. Read the details below: http://www.virtual-strategy.com/2014/11/11/amici-brief-asks-supreme-court-confirm-property-rights-are-fundamental-rights-deserving-c#axzz3Is1uSaNg

Preserve Responsible Shoreline Management LLC has filed a petition for review with the Growth Management Hearings Board to challenge the City of Bainbridge Island’s new Shoreline Master Program (SMP) (Ordinance 2014-04) and the Department of Ecology’s approval of it on August 8. PRSM's website provides the petition at this link: http://prsm-bi.org/?page_id=76 The SMP prohibits docks for single family residences and prohibits bulkheads in some designations. The City declared all single family residences nonconforming, limited their expansion, and limited their height to 30 feet, disregarding SMA allowances. Bainbridge Island shoreline property owners are responsible citizens who care about the waters of the Puget Sound and the wonderful environment we live in.

From the Washington Post: District Court Strikes Down Endangered Species Protections for Exceeding the Scope of Federal Power By Jonathan H. Adler November 5 This afternoon a district court in Utah held that the federal prohibition against “taking” Utah prairie dogs — listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act — exceeds the scope of federal power under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses. Here is how Judge Dee Benson summarized his conclusion in People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Although the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to do many things, it does not authorize Congress to regulate takes of a purely intrastate species that has no substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Join CAPR, the Mining Community, and others at 8:30 am sharp Friday, Nov. 7. Sign in to comment on: http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/2014/wsr_14-14-133.pdf AT the WDFW Commission Meeting to be held at: Natural Resources Building 1111 Washington St SE Olympia WA 98501 First Floor, Room 172 http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2014/11/agenda_nov0714.html CAPR has filed a petition to the WDFW. This Petition was denied.

The Washington State Department of Ecology has determined to pass a rule change onto the Citizens of this state with the creation of an In Stream Flow Rule for the Spokane River and Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie: Chapter 173-557 WAC Water Resources Management Program (WRMP) for the Spokane River and Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie (SVRP) Aquifer and amendment to WAC 173-555-010. The DOE documentation has been provided on this website: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/rules/557-docs.html CAPR has reviewed these documents and finds it is important to share our findings. Ecology is relying on the precautionary principal even though it has had over 40 years to conduct the studies that would be necessary to understand the ground and surface water resources of Eastern Washington.

To borrow from a great blog "Not Without A Fight", we share a presentation by Phil Aune on Forestry. A good insight into what Counties with National Forests face, and how to solve problems faced today. http://countieswithnationalforests.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/video-phil-aunes-presentation-to-the-not-without-a-fight-coalitions-september-conference/

Regardless of personal opinions regarding Marijuana Use, the Control of the Government in this issue has always been a situation that would be questionable at best. What must be decided is what is the advantage to society of Current and Proposed "Legalized Marijuana" law. Are we trading one cartel for another? How does the average citizen, property owner, and taxpayer benefit from these laws?