CAPR's blog

Many property owners have little faith in the operations at DOE. There are just too many instances of the department seeming to be run on ideology and not on facts. Watch the video of Senator Pam Roach's hearing on the GMA linked in this article. You will see the DOE in action trying to answer Senator Roach's questions proving he is woefully inadequate to the job. Ideology will only get you so far... http://citizenreviewonline.org/the-growth-management-act-just-another-central-planning-failure/#more-2663 The Freedom Foundation has been perusing documents from the DOE and is reading some dismaying statements. These statements are also strong on ideology and week on fact.

Read this letter of introduction from CAPR Stevens County to Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson. This letter explains the reasoning behind the refusal to submit to setbacks. RE: Introduction Letter and “Official Statement of the Stevens County Private Property Owners” We are sending you our “Official Statement” that was put together and edited by our group of private property owners in Stevens County. This “Official Statement” we are sending has to do with the “setbacks”/’buffer zones” that are being increased and implemented by the Department of Ecology starting July 01, 2014. These “setbacks” are being illegally implemented on private property around sub-irrigated areas and waterways. So far, the DoE has claimed that these setbacks are being implemented to stop pollution of the waters by livestock.

Official Statement by Stevens County Landowners to the WA State Attorney General, Bob Ferguson We the People, who are land and/or livestock owners in Stevens County, non-violently refuse to submit to any and all “Regulatory Takings” demands that are related to “buffer zones” or “setbacks” (or any other invented terminology to be thought of in the future that references demands of fencing off private property) around any waterways or sub-irrigated areas on our private properties. We the People also non-violently refuse to submit to, respond to, or in any way be held liable to, or pay any fines associated with any of these related regulations that reference anything to do with “buffer zones”, or “setbacks” that are described within the bounds of our private properties.

This case, if heard could relieve some of the pressure on the ESA vs Water Rights ongoing saga in the Central Valley of California. On July 15, 2014, the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, agricultural and municipal water users who collectively divert up to approximately 2.2 million acre-feet of water annually directly from the Sacramento River, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. Below is the paragraph of interest. The Ninth Circuit disagreed and held that Reclamation had discretion to renegotiate certain terms of the contracts in a manner that would benefit the endangered delta smelt.  The Settlement Contractors argue that this decision is in conflict with the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S.

CAPR is opposed to the Mountains to Sound National Heritage Area.  Mapping private property into an Heritage area to be managed or controlled by a private unelected, unaccountable entity will interfere with private property rights.  The very idea that such an area can be created in the method applied by NHAs and the Federal Government is in itself a violation of property rights.  The entity, Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust,  decided what area and property is mapped and controlled, not individual property owners, who have not asked or voted for such control.  Only the Federal Congress votes on a Heritage Area.

 Take the time to defend your liberties! Comments made to the EPA about proposed rules are important steps that citizens must engage in to protect themselves from Government over-reach. In these two instances, Waters of the United States Proposed Rule, the EPA intends to claim jurisdiction over nearly every drop of water in the U. S.  This will have a negative impact on the economy, our food supply, and private property.  Please read attached articles to inform your opinion, and then comment at this link.  The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on Monday, April 21, 2014.

The arrogant and blatant disregard for citizens' land uses is rampant. What makes these people think they have the right to monitor this man's land use?  If what he does fits his agenda, but not the agenda of government, then he must be targeted?  Rules are ignored, and the entire land is monitored, though only a portion is regulated. See the Freedom Foundation article here: http://www.myfreedomfoundation.com/blogs/liberty-live/state-employee-views-property-owners-animals-be-hunted and read the e-mail string here: http://www.myfreedomfoundation.com/sites/default/files/file_attach/131207%20penhale%20email.pdf  

  CAPR ACTION ALERT! Please read this carefully!  The EPA is rule making again, this time to ease the process of garnishing the wages of individuals who owe the US government money.  The EPA has set a very short comment period which ends 8/01/2014  Commenting is how we as individuals may stop this, and your comment will protect yourselves and other American citizens. Commenting must be received prior to 8/01/2014 Quoting directly from the Federal Register:

These small scale miners arrived in Idaho from all parts west in unity against the assault of the Federal Government on their right to mine. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/04/panning-in-protest-activists-illegally-mine-for-gold-in-defiance-epa-regs/

People are wondering how the Notice of Final Policy of the Fish and Wildlife Service will impact them and their properties.  This article takes a look at both the notice and what the author thinks will happen.  The phrase  “significant portion of its range” (“SPR”) is up to determination, and that is always concerning to anyone who wants know law. The immediate red flag here is the claim by the government that the application of this new policy will be relatively uncommon.  Relative to what is the question begged, if it is relative to what the agencies have done in the past, this is alarming!  This well researched article will provide the reader with much useful information.