The League in '97

Thanks to all for renewing your memberships with us. Our work is just beginning and we need your support. We are working hard to protect your property rights. Matth. Toebben is spending time in Frankfort working on logging legislation. Steve Flaig is serving on the Advisory Board to the Historic Preservation Committee of Boone County. Rick Brueggemann is speaking to various groups in the area on the rights of the property owner. Bernie Wessels represented is at the seminar, "Trusting the Land," sponsored by the local Conservation Districts, Planning Commission, and historic Preservation Board. Several board members manned a booth at the Boone Kenton Tobacco Warehouse during a Farm Auction, distributing our literature and talking to farm owners. The board is presently working on a property rights bill to present in the next state legislative session. We are happy to donate our time to these events because we feel the need is great. Your renewal affirms your support. We are only as strong as our membership.

Flood '97 Affects Property Owners

Many people in our area were adversely affected by the floodwaters this spring. The worst flooding in 30 years devastated much private property. We watched with interest how New Richmond, Ohio residents called a town meeting to demand the right to return to their own property after officials denied them access. We know several homeowners in Silver Grove who were refused the right to return to their homes a well. We understand the inherent danger of floodwaters and damaged structures, but we question the legality of such actions. The duty of these officials should be to educate property owners of the dangers, but the decision to stay or return to their property should belong to the property owner.

Historic Preservation Board

Boone County has a new committee headed by Susan Cabot. Their purpose, according to Article 21 of the 1996 Boone County Zoning Regulations, is "to promote the preservation and protection of neighborhoods, areas, places, buildings, structures, sites, and objects having special or distinctive character or a special prehistoric, aesthetic, architectural or cultural interest or value, and which serve as visible reminders of the history and heritage of Boone County, the Commonwealth of Kentucky or this Nation. This preservation, protection, perpetuation, and use is found to be a public necessity, and is required in the interest of the health, prosperity, safety, welfare, and economic well-being of the people."

The League has no objections to the preservation of historic sites in Boone County so long as its preservation is voluntary and not regulatory in nature. We do question whether it is a public necessity and that it is required in the interest of health, prosperity, etc. We see in the article, though, that the owner's permission is not required for such changes, and one of the major "available tools" listed in the Proposal is regulatory, through state and federal statutes, zoning restrictions, and the "creation and associated powers of a traditional local historic district and local historic landmarks commission under the Kentucky Revised Statues would be described."

This Board must respect the rights of the property owner. Property owners should be able to keep their properties from being designated historic if ant strings are attached. Any limitations set on a piece of property must be compensated fairly in accordance with the 5th Amendment. The League believes that strong regulation actually discourages the landowner from preservation of historic items. The man who finds arrowheads on his property may well conceal his findings if he knows the historic Preservation Board will take his land out of production or tie up a project while the conduct a search for artifacts, often at his expense! Only through voluntary participation, through incentives and fair compensation, should this task of historic preservation be taken.

Exciting News for Property Owners

Wayne Hage's property rights case against the Federal Government has scored another victory. (If you will recall, Wayne Hage of Reno, Nevada, was the guest speaker at out first General Meeting) Judge Smith ruled from the bench on February 3, 1997, that the Summary Judgment (handled down on March 8, 1996, in Hage's favor) could not be appealed. As the Federal Government continues to lose ground in Claims Court, they have decided to press completion of the "water adjudication" process for the Monitor Valley area where Pine Creek Ranch is located. This case is being heard by the Nevada State Water Engineer, where the Federal Government will try to convince the Nevada State Water Engineer why, after having title to the water for over 100 years, it no longer belongs to Pine Creek Ranch. As it can provide no valid argument in the case, the Federal Government (in advertisements) encouraged the public to write letters to the State Water Engineer in support of the government and environmentalist's position regarding the adjudication process. It expressed deep concern that some private individual had a claim to all the waters in the area at the expense of wildlife and the environment. It failed to reveal that private interest has appropriately purchased, developed, and maintained these waters. Further it was found out that the advertisements were authorized by Monica J. Schwalbach, who is the assistant Forest Supervisor for Toiyabe National Forest. Then it was discovered that the advertisements were paid for by the Tonopah Forest Service Office. This demonstrates the pattern and practice of the Forest Service to use taxpayers' money to take private property without compensation and due process.

The League continues to support Wayne Hage faithfully and financially.

The following article speared in the Cincinnati Post, page 2A, on Thursday, March 20, 1997.

Farmers Win 1 battle in Environmental Wars

GRANTS PASS, Ore. - The farmers of Langell Valley have their first court victory, five years after their crops withered and they has to sell cattle because the government shut off irrigation water to protect the habitat of two endangered species of fish.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday revived the farmers' lawsuit-which has been dismissed by lower courts-and changed the interpretation of the Endangered Species Act. Justices ruled the law can be used to fight for less, not just more, federal protection of animals and plants. The Clinton administration had sought a "one-way" interpretation of the law.

"It's way too early to celebrate yet," Glenn Barrett said from his cattle ranch outside the southern Oregon community of Bonanza. "It's just one hurdle we has to cross."

The ruling was also handled by several House Republicans who has introduced a bill to amend the Endangered Species Act and overcome the lower court rulings.

Extremists Begin New Offense on Land Rights

Dave Neuendorf of Aurora writes in The Journal-Press (page 4-A, 12/24/96) that the environmental extremists are at work again in the Clinton Administration. The Environmental Protection Agency has announced tougher regulations on air pollution and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has published new wetlands regulations, which took effect February 11. He goes on to explain how these unelected bureaucrats obtained so much power. By the passage of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Corps was given the power to prevent the blocking of the "navigable waters of the United States." Under the Clean Water Act of 1972, the power of the Corp was extended to regulating the depositing of fill material in navigable water. "With the rise of the environmental extremism, concurrent with the growing disdain of the federal courts for the Constitution, the ever-bolder federal agencies created regulations that they claim are based on these two laws. They twisted the meaning of 'navigable waters' beyond any semblance of reason to include so-called wetlands that could not be navigated by so much as a water beetle." If Congress wants to protect the wetlands, it should produce some legislation to do so, says Neuendorf. Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution gives the power to legislate to Congress alone. "Congress should never, through inaction, delegate its legislative powers to unelected bureaucrats." The League agrees that perhaps we should write our Congressmen, reminding them of the Constitutional fact and ask them to rein these extremists in.

Giganticus Joke?
Reprinted form Progressive Farmer, August 1996

This story from Kind County, Wash., sounds more like another Bigfoot tall tale. But apparently, it's fact.

When farmer Jim Baum tried to sell his 17-acre farm, he found that 13 acres had been designated as a wetland and home to 350 endangered plants and animals. That's bad enough news for any single day.

But on the endangered list was Bipedus giganticus, also known as Bigfoot. Except for those grainy photos in the tabloids, no one has actually proved Bipedus giganticus exists.

During an interview with CBS Evening News, King County officials could offer no reason why Bigfoot was on the list. One said it could have been a joke. Maybe. But it's a joke that has yet to be removed from the county's endangered species list.

Rich Nations Protect Personal Property

Walter Williams, a professor of economics at George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., believes we can credit out wealth as a nation to property rights, according to his article in the Cincinnati Enquirer, (same title, 2/9/97, p. D3.) He discredits others' theories of our wealth by pointing out that id our bountiful natural resources were our source of wealth, why aren't South America and Africa rich? The idea that colonialism accounts for Third World poverty ignores out own history of colonialism and the absence of colonialism in countries like Ethiopia. Williams sees a strong correlation in Amnesty International's survey of world human rights protections and county rankings of per capita income in the World Almanac.

"Little is older than the notion that some people know what's best and they've been ordained to forcibly impose that 'wisdom' on others. It's a notion accounting for most human misery." And Williams also notes, "It's also a notion in vogue with America's liberal elite. They differ only in degree but not in kind from global tyrants who show little reluctance to forcibly impose their will on others." Williams acknowledges that there is no complete answer as to why some countries are poor and others are rich, but he adds,"…you can bet the rent money that a large part of the answer has to do with personal liberty and private property rights. Even if liberty and private property rights had nothing to so with wealth accumulation, we want it anyway-because it's morally superior to authoritarianism." The League only hopes that other in high places agree with Dr. Williams.

"In matters of principal…stand like a rock."
-Thomas Jefferson

Sound Science or Environmental Hype?
By: Jay Weber

As I write this, President Clinton has not even been inaugurated for his second term and the Environmental Extremism has already started. In a single sweeping action the EPA has proposed new Particulate Matter (PM) and ground level ozone levels.

The proposed standards of PM now allowing 10 microns size in concentrations of 50 micrograms/m3 of air annually and 150 ug/m3 daily would be lowered to 2.5 microns in concentrations of 15 ug/m3 of air annually and 50 ug/m3 daily.

The proposed ozone standard would be lowered from 0.12 parts per million measured over one hour to 0.08 parts per million measured over 8 hours.

Despite scientific studies showing the change not to be necessary they are moving ahead. This is not science, it is a political agenda. The EPA appointed a commission, The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), which conducted a series of health studies relating to the new compliance levels.

On August 21, 1995 the CASAC wrote EPA and essentially states that from their studies there is regulated. Additionally PM trends from 1940 to 1990 have fallen dramatically and would, under existing regulations, continue to fall. On top of all the above, the EPA is trying to circumvent the intent of Congress by not doing impact studies stating the regulation already exists we are only changing levels.

What does this mean to you? For the economy, there will be a chilling effect on economic growth. Equipment, materials (such as seed, concrete, lumber and etc.) and fuel will cost more. Transportation will cost a lot more. Equipment, such as dozers and tractors may have to be retrofitted. The practice of spraying pesticides and fertilizers will have to change. Cattle feed lots will be regulated. Grain elevators will need to have modifications done.

What can you do? Call your Congress Representative and leave a message saying no to new PM and ozone standards.

Add your support to the Air Quality Standards Coalition 1-800-257-1292. Congress has to approve these new levels and this will probably happen this June. Exercise your right as an American and let your elected officials know your feelings.