[url]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/934033/posts[/url]

[pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed]

Not surprised; just mad.

what a load of crap...
EPA

Rancher Fined for Fixing What the Government Broke
CNSNews.com ^ | June 23, 2003 | National Center for Public Policy Research


Posted on 06/23/2003 7:23 AM PDT by microgood


(Editor's Note: The following is the 75th of 100 stories regarding government regulation from the book Shattered Dreams, written by the National Center for Public Policy Research. CNSNews.com will publish an additional story each day.)

In 1994 and 1995, state and federal agencies - including the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife - put $3.2 million worth of logs in a cree upstream from Leonard Zylstra's ranch near Medford, Ore., for the purpose of enhancing fish habitat.

Waters in the creek reached a 20-year high point in 1997. This tore the logs loose, causing them to gush downstream with debris, overflowing the creek and washing away bridges and two homes. The overflow went into Zylstra's pasture, destroying 29 acres of hay and removing topsoil to a depth of five feet.

After the water subsided, Zylstra got a permit from the Oregon Department of State Lands to re-sculpt his land, re-build levees, lower the creek bed to its original depth and use that dirt to replace the soil he lost. He did not get a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers because Oregon state law does not require agriculture activities to get a "fill and remove" permit.

However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claimed Zylstra violated the Clean Water Act and threatened him with fines up to $43,500 per day followed by property forfeiture unless he returned his property to a "native and natural state."

Under the EPA-approved mitigation plan, Zylstra would be required to plant specific flora, fence off the creek from his cows and lower the levees that have existed for 100 years. Because he cannot afford to challenge the EPA in court, Zylstra has put his ranch up for sale and plans to move to Florida. He is refusing to cooperate with what he calls "bureau rats," especially after the EPA attorney demanded the past four years of his tax returns during the course of the EPA investigation.

Source: Leonard Zylstra

Copyright 2003, National Center for Public Policy Research

All land belongs to the Gov't.

All money belongs to the Gov't.

All children belong to the Gov't.

All power belongs to the Gov't.


Now go back to your meaningless life as a taxpaying drone and stop pretending this is a free country.

I hope you've all read "Unintended Consequences"

Not yet, but Tony was gracious enough to send me his well read copy. I will read it and pass it along as promised.

News like this makes me see why people like Timothy McVeigh did what they did. I don't for any reason CONDONE doing things that way, but I can understand how someone could get driven to that point.

Our Government is WAY WAY WAY out of control.

We are in for another Revolution.

land of the free

Shows what the environmentalists have done to this country.....

Also, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.  

Why don't we return Washington, DC to it's "native and natural state"????  Or maybe parts of LA.  

Hardly anything surprises me any more.....

No matter how long I think about it, I cannot understand why McVeigh killed men, women and children.  Sorry.

timmy's hatred and violence was directed at the wrong people

 Exactly

Trying not to hijack but are you implying timmy should have directed his particular "hatred and violence" against US Attorney General Janet Reno? Are you saying she or other officials should have been assassinated for what happened in Waco? Who were the "right people" for him to direct his particular hatred and violence against?

There are two schools of thought on this issue. One school of thought seems to say that it's okay to direct that sort of violence on the government, sorta like starting a revolution. So yes, he very well could be saying that.

The other school of thought seems to say that we should work within the means that the government gives us, and NOT start killing people, governmental or otherwise. This would include voting, protests, petitions, etc. The first school of thought seems to think that we've already tried this for over 100 years, and that it's not working.

It's probably best not to argue about this sort of thing, as I don't see anyone's mind being changed, but, however, YMMV.