Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: G_Stan1234 on May 17, 2012, 08:04:52 PM
-
Ny neighbor dammed up a creek upstream from my property, my issues is we had some wetlands that we enjoyed that are now dry , plus on a heavy rain their pond overflows and all the pond chemicals (Copper Sulfate) is now in my low land. They are unwilling to resolve, went to drainage board but all laws are for upstream properties not down stream. I do not know what to do now. Any Legal suggestions?
-
Obviously a situation that calls for detcord.
Seriously, might give your local EPA a call if the neighbors dired up a no kidding wetlands they might be in trouble.
-
Army corps of engineers may also have something to say about his dam too.
-
Obviously a situation that calls for detcord.
Dang, before I could even chime in.
Seriously, might give your local EPA a call if the neighbors dired up a no kidding wetlands they might be in trouble.
-
Dang, before I could even chime in.
There are very few problems in this world that can't be solved with an appropriate application of high explosives
-
Dang, before I could even chime in.
First thing that went to my mind too was his lack of detcord as an option. Dam you RoadKingLarry! :lol:
-
Dammed neighbors, glad none of mine live close by.
jim
-
I'm working with a similar problem, except neighbor dammed the creek and it's now flooding my property.
A lot of your options will depend on what your state reg's are. I should have started by reading the Texas Water Code, would have saved a few phone calls; see if your state has something similar.
In my case none of the seemingly appropriate State agencies would help, nor would the Federal Soil Conservation folks. I do have a promise of assistance from the County Commissioner, assuming he wins the election at the end of this month.
Is this a year-round creek or a seasonal creek - one that dries up unless it's raining? If it's a year-round creek, that means there should be water entering his dam year round, and once the dam is full the overflow should head your way, which would re-create your wetlands.
Does he have any kind of overflow system on the dam? Sluice gates, overflow pipes etc? Does his dam meet all of the requirements of all applicable state rules & regs?
Are permits and/or inspections required and did he pull the permits and/or have the inspections performed? The Texas Dam folks will come out and inspect any dam for any reason - even a complaint/request from a neighbor. If the dam isn't constructed properly, and a lot of home-built dams aren't, it could pose a flooding problem if/when something goes wrong with it. The most common problem with dam construction is that the builder just piles the dam dirt on top of the existing dirt, not mixing the two together by tilling or similar method. This creates a loose joint between the two, which can cause problems ranging from minor seepage at the base of the dam to the entire dam giving way - with all the water coming towards you at one time.
-
Google "Riparian Rights" and see if there's anything that applies to your state. There should be.
-
Start with Corps of Engineers - destroying wetlands without paying the permit fees or creating substitute wetlands elsewhere annoys them mightily. This means finding out if he has a permit in the first place, which is not hard to do since CoE keeps records of that sort of thing.
Check with the county/state to see if he has a permit for constructing/maintaining a dam,
Ge a water sample analysis and contact the state version of EPA about the chemicals escaping the pond. Bet he does not have a discharge permit for that!
Get your land inspected. Don't forget to inspect for subsidance and the possibility of things like sinkholes due to the change in water table, as well as flood damage/erosion due to loss of wetlands. Get an estimate of the value of the land with the now-dried wetlands area. Compare that with the value of your land with the wetlands. Sue for the difference and forced mitigation if the value drops. If it's gone up sell and shut up.
If you made property improvements in order to take advantage of the wetlands, sue to recover those costs plus emotional damages from loss of enjoyment or, alternatively to have your wetlands restored.
If the pond is overflowing only after heavy rains look to see if he has proper erosion controls in place. One of the ways to do that is to file a complaint that he does not and let the folks in charge of that tell you his controls are appropriate, adequate, and within spec for whatever authorizing action was granted regarding overflow and control thereof. (Those are 3 separate items regarding his controls - he needs to have all of them.)
Sue for emotional damage. Not the most elegant solution, but your heartbreak over the loss of homes for all the creatures that used to live there could be more expensive than mitigating the damn dam and restoring your wetlands to their former state (regardless of what CoE/EPA/etc does to him).
Almost missed this one - call your state's fish/game folks about the pond chemical spillage. He's poisoning the downstream creatures. I'll bet the only way to stop that is to lose the dam.
That should tide you over until the detcord arrives.
stay safe.
-
What state are you in?
It makes all the difference.
The USEPA is not necessarily involved.
It’s an Army Corps of Engineers issue (by Rivers and Harbors act) on Section 10 waters i.e. historically navigable or influenced by tides; or a State (by controlling state legislation, if any) issue.
What State are you in?
Here is a start:
Location of the USACoE district offices
http://www.usace.army.mil/Locations.aspx
Fill out and send Report of Potential Unauthorized Activity - This is for Pittsburgh - Send one to your district.
http://www.lrp.usace.army.mil/or/or-f/ReportWetlandViolationForm_Fillable.pdf
But call them first.
Really, call the district office and see that they actually do have jurisdiction over the water in question.
It'll save a couple of weeks
-
Google "Riparian Rights" and see if there's anything that applies to your state...
Unless he's out west where water law is quite - uh - different than what we're used to
See "water right appropriation" or "appropriative water rights".
-
what size is the stream? where is the water going if his damn doesn't let any of it back on your property?
-
What is it with you people whining about your dam problems?
-
Why are we proposing use the govt's gun to keep the neighbor from using his property as he wishes? What's wrong with you people?
Chris
-
I'm guessing because in the two cases regarding dams and properties, in both cases the person "using their property as they wish" is having a direct impact on the property of others, in one case causing flooding, and in another case drying out a wetland.
-
"Wetlands" are just a govt contrived classification that keeps people from using their property as they see fit.
Sorry, just remaining consistent with APS logic regarding property.
Chris
-
"Wetlands" are just a govt contrived classification that keeps people from using their property as they see fit.
Sorry, just remaining consistent with APS logic regarding property.
Chris
I appreciate your attempt at reductio ad absurdum here, but it's not accurate.
Even the most extreme versions of AnarchCap libertarianism don't take a "whoever's up stream winner-takes-all" approach to water and streams crossing people's property. By that same reasoning, someone could (in theory) build some sort of giant air-pump and suck all the world's 02 up, killing everyone on the planet, and it's "okay" because they only suck up the O2 when it's "over their land". Or that aircraft could never cross over private property, no matter what the altitude, without negotiating overflight rights with each individual parcel.
There's a demonstrable harm here to the natural state of someone's property. And while we may disagree with how the .gov goes about enforcing these things, or their overreach in situations when there is no demonstrable harm to the next persons property, that's not the case here, and the OP might as well use the enforcement tools available to him.
-
Why are we proposing use the govt's gun to keep the neighbor from using his property as he wishes? What's wrong with you people?
Chris
"Wetlands" are just a govt contrived classification that keeps people from using their property as they see fit.
Sorry, just remaining consistent with APS logic regarding property.
Chris
More true than not, sure. But intentionally destroying your neighbor's property isn't kosher either. If I cut a tree on my property, dropping it on the house next door, I am and should be liable for my damages.
In my opinion, he'd be morally correct to blow the dam up after a polite word of damages and a bit of waiting. Or a proper duel. But, society frowns on that, sadly. So he's going with the only legal avenue available. The form may be imperfect (CoE, et al) but so long as he sticks to proper right and wrong, he'll be fine.
-
As others have pointed out, I don't think anyone at APS has a real problem with how others use their property, so long as it doesn't affect someone else's property.
-
I'm guessing because in the two cases regarding dams and properties, in both cases the person "using their property as they wish" is having a direct impact on the property of others, in one case causing flooding, and in another case drying out a wetland.
Just need to even out the two cases ;)
-
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Riparian+Rights
riparian rights n. the right of the owner of the land forming the bank of a river or stream to use water from the waterway for use on the land, such as for drinking water or irrigation. State laws vary as to the extent of the rights, but controversy exists as to the extent of riparian rights for diversion of water to sell to others, for industrial purposes, to mine the land under the water for gravel or minerals, or for docks and marinas. Consistent in these questions is that a riparian owner may not act to deny riparian rights to the owner of downstream properties along the waterway, meaning the water may not be dammed and channelled away from its natural course.
Lawyer up. If you already have a lawyer and he didn't explain this to you -- find a different lawyer.
-
Why isn't "Long-range Rifle Fire" one of the choices?
-
Maybe I missed it before, but I noticed the poll at the top this AM.
Why start out at the place you should end up at only when all else has failed?
If you have the money to throw around I will be happy to be one of your targets. Because going to court early is just like throwing money away. Most of the administrative remedies suggested do not cost anything (except perhaps the hiring of someone to search for records).
stay safe.
-
Introduce a family or two of beavers upstream from his dam....
-
Muskrats can make shortwork of a dam with their tunneling.
http://www.wildlifedamage.com/muskrats.htm
The little fuzzballs are fun to watch also.
-
Why start out at the place you should end up at only when all else has failed?
You mean at the Armed Polite Society?
So, this new guy signs up for APS one morning at ten to eight, sets up a poll, logs out at 8:10.
We commence to all clamber over one another to give free advice, and the OP never checks back.
I suppose he might be lurking form a non-logged-in position, but at least send a smoke signal or something to acknowledge receipt.
In full disclosure, I thought this was a continuation of the Cliffh thread.