|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Dec 26, 2009 8:46:46 GMT -5
whatever Federal statute you are quoting is worthless until it gets enforced.. until then State law will always prevail.. owners pay taxes on the ground that floods, they own it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jabba on Dec 26, 2009 10:01:07 GMT -5
The history here is that unscrupulous land owners and bankers... and surveyors for that matter conspired to produce fradulent deeds. They have been largly enforced fradulently, and been propagated many times over. What needs to happen, if for the Fed to recant the National River Law. I like laws that are clear cut. What we HAVE is laws that proclaim different things. And essentially there is NO state law... there is just State politicians (Judges) ignoring federal law. If those landowners are paying taxes on that property... they SHOULDN'T be. It's not really theirs. If it takes the Fed taking the land back thru imminent domain... then they SHOULD. (Paying fair market value to the landowners that unknowingly bought property via fradulent deed) OR... the Fed should renounce the National River Law and clear things up. I don't want t o make ANY hard feelings with anyone. I think we can disagree about this, and still be friends. We agree about hunting and protecting our guns, and I'd venture to say that we probably agree about wanting smaller government in general. In the grand scheme of things, this is a pretty minor issue. Basically I like to argue. I hope I didn't get anyone too mad at me. I still think is hosed up. Maybe if I "owned" land along a navicable river, I'd change sides...  Jabba I am a sucker for the RULE of LAW. this one isn't even close to clear. Not how it's been in any of OUR memories. |
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Dec 26, 2009 12:29:17 GMT -5
Definately no hard feelings here Jabba. I love a good discussion!
|
|
|
|
Post by duff on Dec 28, 2009 21:08:20 GMT -5
It's been a while since I read the "national law" but don't they reference the normal high water mark not land that normally floods. The normal high water mark is a definable transition where flood planes are not. By your rational the farm fields along every river in the state are free for all...good luck with your conquest!
|
|
|
|
Post by jabba on Dec 29, 2009 18:20:00 GMT -5
When I read the NRL, it says any land that's covered by water in a normal year. Most farm land along the river isn't covered by water more often than not. If it was... the crops there would suck. But the brushy, crappy, nothing grows there but trees and horse-weeds land that's usually swampy, and full of drainage ruts... THAT'S what I'm talking about. But yeah I know... it's a "good luck with my conquest" anyway. Too many fat-cats with money paying to keep judges in office, who in return, thumb their noses at Federal Statute, and keep poor slobs like me down. Jabba |
|
