Eric Kimmel
Well-known member
SouthernAirboat.com Pictures & Wallpapers Classifieds Forum Weather & Water Data Store Calendar AirboatDirectory.com
RedneckCuisine.com...please register & add your favorite recipes!
You last visited on Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:16 pm
The time now is Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:44 pm EST
View posts since last visit
View your posts
View unanswered posts FAQ Search Memberlist Frappr Map Profile Usergroups
Chat Room You have no new messages Log out [ Eric Kimmel ]
All users of this site must read & agree to be bound by the SouthernAirboat.com Rules & Terms
Attack on "Navigable" waterways rights
Southern Airboat Forum Index -> Airboat Talk
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
BigDaddy
Site Supporter - VIII
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 1135
Location: Tampa, FL
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:29 am Post subject: Attack on "Navigable" waterways rights
This from L. Jack Moller...the ever vigilant supporter of sportsman's access
Chuck Carroll Photography : photos : Okeechobee Mudfest -- February 9, 2008- powered by SmugMug
Folks once the green people and radical environmental groups get the Federal Clean Water Act amended by removing the word "navigable" from the law you are looking at what will be a historical event. With this one word change ALL waters, this is the current Florida Wildlife Federation position, will come under the Clean Water Act. Enjoy your equipment while you can or stop the current legislation in Washington DC from removing this one word.
I am sure you all recall the legal premise of the law suit filed against the use of ORVs in the BICY under the current clean water act. The foundation for the attack by FL Biodiversity and Sierra was that ORVs created turbidity and moved soil when they traveled through the swamps. They wanted to stop all ORV use in the BICY unless the owner applied for and received an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit under the Clean Water Act.
The above link said 15,000 people attended this mudfest. If each sent and email to their Congressional member they would stop the attempts of the environmental folks to create a law that will for sure stop their activity and turn their equipment in to junk.
Jack
_________________
A I R B O A T
Anytime It Runs, Break Out Another Thousand
Back to top
cowboy
Site Supporter - VI
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Posts: 3897
Location: Beautiful Desperation Ridge
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:27 pm Post subject:
what link?
Back to top
cont520
Site Supporter - III
Joined: 13 May 2007
Posts: 1403
Location: Plant City
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject:
Yeah lets see it I am game
_________________
Robert Mccormick
Plant City Florida
Back to top
deepsea diver
Site Supporter - V
Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 793
Location: East Orange County
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject:
http://chuckcarrollphotography.smugmug. ... #252983030
Back to top
cowboy
Site Supporter - VI
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Posts: 3897
Location: Beautiful Desperation Ridge
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject:
Guess I missread that post.
Thought there was a link available to this proposed change in the legislation.
Back to top
Eric Kimmel
Southern Airboat Member
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 20
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:55 pm Post subject:
This is what I sent in on the clean water bill HR21 we need as nmany as possible to send in No to HR2421 will look for the email address I sent this to and post as soon as I can find it. I am not good at organizing my files on a computer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Looprd@aol.com
To: courtney.littig@mail.house.gov
Subject: Please Vote NO HR2421
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 7:43:12 PM Eastern Standard Time
- Testimony for the Record
Please Vote NO to HR 2421 -- Clean Water Restoration Act (National Wetlands Land Use Control Bill)
To all of our Honorable
US House of Representatives
HR 2421, The Clean Water Restoration Act, is really a massive Federal land and water power grab. It will use "wetlands" to take control over every farm, ranch, and piece of private property with any water on it or even if the landowner only engage in activities that might affect water.
It expands the authority of the Federal government under the Clean Water Act of 1972 to include all waters of the U.S. and activities affecting these waters.
It will give the Corps of Engineers control over most private property.
In the words of Reed Hopper of Pacific Legal Foundation, lead attorney in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court victory, "...this bill pushes the limits of federal power to an extreme not matched by any other law, probably in the history of this country."
Below are my concerns and testimony regarding HR 2421, the inappropriately named Clean Water Restoration Act. It has little to do with clean water and is mostly about land use control.
Please allow this Testimony to be submitted for the record for any additional hearings to be held on HR 2421, the Clean Water Restoration Act.
Please consider a photocopy of this document as valid as the
original and include my testimony for the official record.
Signature ________________________________
Print Your Name __Eric Kimmel____________________________
1. The jurisdiction of federal agencies under the Clean Water Act of 1972 should remain limited to navigable waters and not expanded to include all waters of the U.S., such as wetlands, sloughs, meadows, intermittent streams, prairie potholes, ponds, playa lakes, mudflats and sand flats.
Agree.
--2. The definition of wetlands under federal jurisdiction should be limited to those areas that are permanently wet or free flowing.
Agree.
--3. The Clean Water Act 1972 should not be used as a tool for national land use controls.
Agree. Too often we have witnessed the misuse and interpretations of law manipulated by those who oppose the traditional uses of an area.
--4. The Clean Water Act of 1972 should not be expanded to include activities affecting waters.
Agree. It needs to be re-evaluated it is open to abuse as we are witnessing by those that are sponsoring HR2421 which again I do not support nor should any citizen that supports the principals this nation was founded on. Obviously, those behind this legislation have only contempt for the Constitution, limited government and private property rights. To understand what the framers of the Constitution intended, one need only look to their writings and the writings of those from whom they took wisdom and direction. A few of thousands of quotes follow:
Quote 1: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments from Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free." - John Adams, A Defence of the Constitution of the United States against the Attacks of M. Turgot, 1787.
Quote 2: "What a man has honestly acquired is absolutely his own, which he may freely give, but cannot be taken from him without his consent." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Circular Letter, 1768.
Quote 3: ".'tis not without reason that [man] seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates which I call by the name of property." - John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 1690
Quote 4: "The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable." - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776
Comment 1: Obviously these are foreign concepts to the environmental lobby and their fellow travelers.
--5. The U. S. Supreme Court decisions of 2001 and 2006 that ruled in favor of local government and landowners should not be overturned by the proposed Clean Water Restoration Act (HR 2421).
Agree. The Supreme Court ruled correctly at that time and the decision should stand.
--6. Mostly dry land and isolated wetlands should be excluded from federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act of 1972.
Agree. This is where interpretations of congressional acts and the monies those environmental groups and their attorneys make with re-interpreting and twisting the laws. This was a good law at the time to stop large scale polluters from dumping large quantities of industrial waste into or rivers and lakes and now has expanded to encroachment of the federal government into the lives and homes of the private citizen Adding insult to injury we the taxpayers end up paying the settlements and the attorney’. Environmental litigation is a major source of income and what a deal these folks have imposing their will , destroying our culture and rights and getting rich off of us.
--7. The definition of pollutants under the Clean Water Act of 1972 should not include clean fill or natural material of any kind.
Agree. The National Park Service has frequently stopped private property owners living inside or along side the Preserve or Park lands from even repairing the driveways into their properties
--8. The term 'discharge' should not apply to the disturbance of soils or natural materials.
Agree. We have already lost access to most of the lands that the Gladesman Culture of Florida once had due to claims disturbance of soils from our swampbuggies and airboats
--9. Citizens cited for violation of regulations under the Clean Water Act of 1972 should not face criminal penalties.
Agree. Unless the owner was blatantly pouring significant pollutants into a river lake or the ground
--10. National Water Quality goals should be achieved without violating constitutionally protected property rights.
Agree.
--11. National Water Quality goals are best achieved by local and state governments, rather than by federal agencies.
Agree. The States have already lost too many of their rights to federal agencies, Every time we have accepted Federal Money for Conservation lands we have lost our traditional cultural uses of the lands due to the strings that come with the Federal Money. Picayune State Forrest is an example as well as the Big Cypress National Preserve.
- Different regions have different cultures and it is important to retain our rights as a free people we do not need government intrusion into our lives and culture.
--12. National Water Quality goals should consider priorities and costs
Agree and it should also consider the cultural values.
--13. National Water Quality goals should consider regional differences in landscapes and other ecological characteristics.
Agree. Absolutely here we have the Gladesman Culture of the Everglades other areas have their own culture and traditions. Whether it be mountainous, plains or the hills rivers and lakes each area is unique and those people who live there should be free to choose what is best.
--14. 'Regulatory Takings' that devalue private property should be compensated under provisions of the 5th Amendment.
Agree. To some extent but the truth is there is no money that can make you whole when you lose access and use of lands and waters that you owned compensation would be a last resort but you still would not be made whole with money. The best decision would be NO REGULATORY TAKINGS
--15. Access to and use and enjoyment of public lands and waters should be guaranteed under provisions of the Clean Water Act.
Agree. I am adamant about access. Our family has lost access to nearly 90% of the areas we used to hunt fish and boat in and around the Everglades.
--16. 'Environmental' organizations have become too radical and have too much power and influence over federal legislation.
I am an active environmentalist but I do agree that too many of these groups are well funded zealots and have financed themselves quite well through donations of Americans who don't know anything other than the Headlines fund these organizations without knowing or participating in actual environmental projects. These groups have become well versed in twisting environmental law and financed themselves into a powerful lobbying group and we the supposedly free people continue to lose our rights. Having partnered up with Environmentalist with a common goal such as creating the Big Cypress National Preserve we found out the hard way that No Good Deed goes unpunished. The good deed was we stopped the jetport and the urbanization of the area with a promise and an act of Congress that was supposed to guarantee that our traditional uses would continue incrementally we lost access and use due to environmental zealots We can no longer trust many of the environmental groups even though as Gladesman we care and are much more proactive in regards to the environment works than most of what I refer to as arm chair environmentalists.
--17. The Clean Water Restoration Act and other environmental legislation is often not about environmental protection, but about control over land, water, and people.
Agree. Time and time again I experience this The Army Corps of Engineers and the US Fish and Wildlife Service do not like us to see what is actually going on in our public lands. Example ACoE and USFWS flood lands killing off many species of wildlife to manage whatever is the popular species on the ESA at the time these agencies destroyed an average of 60 hammocks a year artificially keep one are dry for the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow while holding back waters to the North We have been locked out of our traditional cultures hunting and frogging lands also because of the ESA for the sparrow and Panthers. The NPS has used every trick in the book to change the original act creating the Preserve and turn it into a Park forsaking the intent of the legislation and manipulating laws to push us out of the land.
--18. Please do not give the Corps of Engineers increased power to regulate more private land.
Agree Keep off my land
- Support the Gladesman Culture
Please vote no on HR2421
- Thank You for consideration of my comments
-
- Eric Kimmel
- 12685 SW 200 ST M
- Miami FL 33177 email Looprd@aol.com
PH 305-345-4202
Back to top
Eric Kimmel
Southern Airboat Member
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 20
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:03 pm Post subject:
These are some of the email write to say no to change of clean water
courtney.littig@mail.house.gov paul.kidwell@mail.house.gov susan.mcavoy@mail.house.gov, keith.pemrick@mail.house.gov hilary.cain@mail.house.gov, kim.thompson@mail.house.gov jeremy.haldeman@mail.house.gov eric.wortman@mail.house, govdan.easley@mail.house.gov, aaron.schmidt@mail.house.gov mike.goodman@mail.house.gov, erik.komendant@mail.house.gov meredith.salsbery@mail.house.gov, sean.obrien@mail.house.gov, erika.young@mail.house.gov, matthew.weisman@mail.house.gov, jeffrey.gabriel@mail.house.gov, marilyn.dillihay@mail.house.gov, nick.holder@mail.house.gov matt.chiller@mail.house.gov, christa.fornarotto@mail.house.gov
Back to top
Eric Kimmel
Southern Airboat Member
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 20
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject:
This is a more complete list of those to send no to HR2421
To: courtney.littig@mail.house.gov paul.kidwell@mail.house.gov susan.mcavoy@mail.house.gov, keith.pemrick@mail.house.gov hilary.cain@mail.house.gov, kim.thompson@mail.house.gov jeremy.haldeman@mail.house.gov eric.wortman@mail.house, govdan.easley@mail.house.gov, aaron.schmidt@mail.house.gov mike.goodman@mail.house.gov, erik.komendant@mail.house.gov meredith.salsbery@mail.house.gov, sean.obrien@mail.house.gov, erika.young@mail.house.gov, matthew.weisman@mail.house.gov, jeffrey.gabriel@mail.house.gov, marilyn.dillihay@mail.house.gov, nick.holder@mail.house.gov matt.chiller@mail.house.gov, christa.fornarotto@mail.house.gov, brian.waldrip@mail.house.gov, lindsay.bowers@mail.house.gov, pamela.day@mail.house.gov john.matim.lundquist@mail.house.gov paul.sawyer@mail.house.gov jacob.sciandra@mail.house.gov alex.richard@mail.house.gov, pamela.day@mail.house.gov sandra.breitengross@mail.house.gov tommy.sevier@mail.house.gov, chris.berardini@mail.house.gov, stephen.borg@mail.house.gov, joe.thomas@mail.house.gov, paul.sass@mail.house.gov, stephen.martinko@mail.house.gov kathee.facchiano@mail.house.gov, bill.tighe@mail.house.gov, lauren.robitaille@mail.house.gov ryan.young@mail.house.gov pete.Richards@mail.house.gov alan.knapp@mail.house.gov chris.miller@mail.house.gov, francis.gibbs@mail.house.gov meredith.bircher@mail.house.gov joe.lillis@mail.house.gov, terri.fish@mail.house.gov joe.jansen@mail.house.gov, sean.moran@mail.house.gov, dena.kozanas@mail.house.gov, jeff.ringer@mail.house.gov, max.goodman@mail.house.govutz@mail.house.gov, ryan.temme@mail.house.gov, matt.reiffer@mail.house.gov jim.coon@mail.house.gov, ryan.boyce@mail.house.gov
Back to top
Eric Kimmel
Southern Airboat Member
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 20
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:12 pm Post subject:
Shorter version change around some and send to email addresses listed above
I do not support HR2421 it will only dilute the ability to enforce the Clean Water Act and create confusion in the application of this Act. Even a previous president of the National Wildlife Federation has co-signed a letter opposing this HR2421.
Further, the way HR2421 is worded it will be used to generate thousands of litigations against sportsman and women across the nation. There has already been litigation against a skeet club in which the shot falling the water, steel shot, was considered a fill item and a 404 permit required. It will stop hunting and fishing in or on waters in the USA because of this fill issue plus any action that disturbs the mud or bottom of the water body will be banned. This bottom disturbance is currently used in the navigable waters of the Florida Keys to stop boats from going in vast areas of this geographic area. Hence, you will not duck hunt or fish or cross any water body where you boat or boot disturbs the bottom.
Please vote no on HR2421.
Thank you for considering my thoughts
RedneckCuisine.com...please register & add your favorite recipes!
You last visited on Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:16 pm
The time now is Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:44 pm EST
View posts since last visit
View your posts
View unanswered posts FAQ Search Memberlist Frappr Map Profile Usergroups
Chat Room You have no new messages Log out [ Eric Kimmel ]
All users of this site must read & agree to be bound by the SouthernAirboat.com Rules & Terms
Attack on "Navigable" waterways rights
Southern Airboat Forum Index -> Airboat Talk
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
BigDaddy
Site Supporter - VIII
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 1135
Location: Tampa, FL
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:29 am Post subject: Attack on "Navigable" waterways rights
This from L. Jack Moller...the ever vigilant supporter of sportsman's access
Chuck Carroll Photography : photos : Okeechobee Mudfest -- February 9, 2008- powered by SmugMug
Folks once the green people and radical environmental groups get the Federal Clean Water Act amended by removing the word "navigable" from the law you are looking at what will be a historical event. With this one word change ALL waters, this is the current Florida Wildlife Federation position, will come under the Clean Water Act. Enjoy your equipment while you can or stop the current legislation in Washington DC from removing this one word.
I am sure you all recall the legal premise of the law suit filed against the use of ORVs in the BICY under the current clean water act. The foundation for the attack by FL Biodiversity and Sierra was that ORVs created turbidity and moved soil when they traveled through the swamps. They wanted to stop all ORV use in the BICY unless the owner applied for and received an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit under the Clean Water Act.
The above link said 15,000 people attended this mudfest. If each sent and email to their Congressional member they would stop the attempts of the environmental folks to create a law that will for sure stop their activity and turn their equipment in to junk.
Jack
_________________
A I R B O A T
Anytime It Runs, Break Out Another Thousand
Back to top
cowboy
Site Supporter - VI
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Posts: 3897
Location: Beautiful Desperation Ridge
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:27 pm Post subject:
what link?
Back to top
cont520
Site Supporter - III
Joined: 13 May 2007
Posts: 1403
Location: Plant City
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject:
Yeah lets see it I am game
_________________
Robert Mccormick
Plant City Florida
Back to top
deepsea diver
Site Supporter - V
Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 793
Location: East Orange County
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject:
http://chuckcarrollphotography.smugmug. ... #252983030
Back to top
cowboy
Site Supporter - VI
Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Posts: 3897
Location: Beautiful Desperation Ridge
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject:
Guess I missread that post.
Thought there was a link available to this proposed change in the legislation.
Back to top
Eric Kimmel
Southern Airboat Member
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 20
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:55 pm Post subject:
This is what I sent in on the clean water bill HR21 we need as nmany as possible to send in No to HR2421 will look for the email address I sent this to and post as soon as I can find it. I am not good at organizing my files on a computer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Looprd@aol.com
To: courtney.littig@mail.house.gov
Subject: Please Vote NO HR2421
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 7:43:12 PM Eastern Standard Time
- Testimony for the Record
Please Vote NO to HR 2421 -- Clean Water Restoration Act (National Wetlands Land Use Control Bill)
To all of our Honorable
US House of Representatives
HR 2421, The Clean Water Restoration Act, is really a massive Federal land and water power grab. It will use "wetlands" to take control over every farm, ranch, and piece of private property with any water on it or even if the landowner only engage in activities that might affect water.
It expands the authority of the Federal government under the Clean Water Act of 1972 to include all waters of the U.S. and activities affecting these waters.
It will give the Corps of Engineers control over most private property.
In the words of Reed Hopper of Pacific Legal Foundation, lead attorney in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court victory, "...this bill pushes the limits of federal power to an extreme not matched by any other law, probably in the history of this country."
Below are my concerns and testimony regarding HR 2421, the inappropriately named Clean Water Restoration Act. It has little to do with clean water and is mostly about land use control.
Please allow this Testimony to be submitted for the record for any additional hearings to be held on HR 2421, the Clean Water Restoration Act.
Please consider a photocopy of this document as valid as the
original and include my testimony for the official record.
Signature ________________________________
Print Your Name __Eric Kimmel____________________________
1. The jurisdiction of federal agencies under the Clean Water Act of 1972 should remain limited to navigable waters and not expanded to include all waters of the U.S., such as wetlands, sloughs, meadows, intermittent streams, prairie potholes, ponds, playa lakes, mudflats and sand flats.
Agree.
--2. The definition of wetlands under federal jurisdiction should be limited to those areas that are permanently wet or free flowing.
Agree.
--3. The Clean Water Act 1972 should not be used as a tool for national land use controls.
Agree. Too often we have witnessed the misuse and interpretations of law manipulated by those who oppose the traditional uses of an area.
--4. The Clean Water Act of 1972 should not be expanded to include activities affecting waters.
Agree. It needs to be re-evaluated it is open to abuse as we are witnessing by those that are sponsoring HR2421 which again I do not support nor should any citizen that supports the principals this nation was founded on. Obviously, those behind this legislation have only contempt for the Constitution, limited government and private property rights. To understand what the framers of the Constitution intended, one need only look to their writings and the writings of those from whom they took wisdom and direction. A few of thousands of quotes follow:
Quote 1: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments from Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free." - John Adams, A Defence of the Constitution of the United States against the Attacks of M. Turgot, 1787.
Quote 2: "What a man has honestly acquired is absolutely his own, which he may freely give, but cannot be taken from him without his consent." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Circular Letter, 1768.
Quote 3: ".'tis not without reason that [man] seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates which I call by the name of property." - John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 1690
Quote 4: "The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable." - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776
Comment 1: Obviously these are foreign concepts to the environmental lobby and their fellow travelers.
--5. The U. S. Supreme Court decisions of 2001 and 2006 that ruled in favor of local government and landowners should not be overturned by the proposed Clean Water Restoration Act (HR 2421).
Agree. The Supreme Court ruled correctly at that time and the decision should stand.
--6. Mostly dry land and isolated wetlands should be excluded from federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act of 1972.
Agree. This is where interpretations of congressional acts and the monies those environmental groups and their attorneys make with re-interpreting and twisting the laws. This was a good law at the time to stop large scale polluters from dumping large quantities of industrial waste into or rivers and lakes and now has expanded to encroachment of the federal government into the lives and homes of the private citizen Adding insult to injury we the taxpayers end up paying the settlements and the attorney’. Environmental litigation is a major source of income and what a deal these folks have imposing their will , destroying our culture and rights and getting rich off of us.
--7. The definition of pollutants under the Clean Water Act of 1972 should not include clean fill or natural material of any kind.
Agree. The National Park Service has frequently stopped private property owners living inside or along side the Preserve or Park lands from even repairing the driveways into their properties
--8. The term 'discharge' should not apply to the disturbance of soils or natural materials.
Agree. We have already lost access to most of the lands that the Gladesman Culture of Florida once had due to claims disturbance of soils from our swampbuggies and airboats
--9. Citizens cited for violation of regulations under the Clean Water Act of 1972 should not face criminal penalties.
Agree. Unless the owner was blatantly pouring significant pollutants into a river lake or the ground
--10. National Water Quality goals should be achieved without violating constitutionally protected property rights.
Agree.
--11. National Water Quality goals are best achieved by local and state governments, rather than by federal agencies.
Agree. The States have already lost too many of their rights to federal agencies, Every time we have accepted Federal Money for Conservation lands we have lost our traditional cultural uses of the lands due to the strings that come with the Federal Money. Picayune State Forrest is an example as well as the Big Cypress National Preserve.
- Different regions have different cultures and it is important to retain our rights as a free people we do not need government intrusion into our lives and culture.
--12. National Water Quality goals should consider priorities and costs
Agree and it should also consider the cultural values.
--13. National Water Quality goals should consider regional differences in landscapes and other ecological characteristics.
Agree. Absolutely here we have the Gladesman Culture of the Everglades other areas have their own culture and traditions. Whether it be mountainous, plains or the hills rivers and lakes each area is unique and those people who live there should be free to choose what is best.
--14. 'Regulatory Takings' that devalue private property should be compensated under provisions of the 5th Amendment.
Agree. To some extent but the truth is there is no money that can make you whole when you lose access and use of lands and waters that you owned compensation would be a last resort but you still would not be made whole with money. The best decision would be NO REGULATORY TAKINGS
--15. Access to and use and enjoyment of public lands and waters should be guaranteed under provisions of the Clean Water Act.
Agree. I am adamant about access. Our family has lost access to nearly 90% of the areas we used to hunt fish and boat in and around the Everglades.
--16. 'Environmental' organizations have become too radical and have too much power and influence over federal legislation.
I am an active environmentalist but I do agree that too many of these groups are well funded zealots and have financed themselves quite well through donations of Americans who don't know anything other than the Headlines fund these organizations without knowing or participating in actual environmental projects. These groups have become well versed in twisting environmental law and financed themselves into a powerful lobbying group and we the supposedly free people continue to lose our rights. Having partnered up with Environmentalist with a common goal such as creating the Big Cypress National Preserve we found out the hard way that No Good Deed goes unpunished. The good deed was we stopped the jetport and the urbanization of the area with a promise and an act of Congress that was supposed to guarantee that our traditional uses would continue incrementally we lost access and use due to environmental zealots We can no longer trust many of the environmental groups even though as Gladesman we care and are much more proactive in regards to the environment works than most of what I refer to as arm chair environmentalists.
--17. The Clean Water Restoration Act and other environmental legislation is often not about environmental protection, but about control over land, water, and people.
Agree. Time and time again I experience this The Army Corps of Engineers and the US Fish and Wildlife Service do not like us to see what is actually going on in our public lands. Example ACoE and USFWS flood lands killing off many species of wildlife to manage whatever is the popular species on the ESA at the time these agencies destroyed an average of 60 hammocks a year artificially keep one are dry for the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow while holding back waters to the North We have been locked out of our traditional cultures hunting and frogging lands also because of the ESA for the sparrow and Panthers. The NPS has used every trick in the book to change the original act creating the Preserve and turn it into a Park forsaking the intent of the legislation and manipulating laws to push us out of the land.
--18. Please do not give the Corps of Engineers increased power to regulate more private land.
Agree Keep off my land
- Support the Gladesman Culture
Please vote no on HR2421
- Thank You for consideration of my comments
-
- Eric Kimmel
- 12685 SW 200 ST M
- Miami FL 33177 email Looprd@aol.com
PH 305-345-4202
Back to top
Eric Kimmel
Southern Airboat Member
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 20
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:03 pm Post subject:
These are some of the email write to say no to change of clean water
courtney.littig@mail.house.gov paul.kidwell@mail.house.gov susan.mcavoy@mail.house.gov, keith.pemrick@mail.house.gov hilary.cain@mail.house.gov, kim.thompson@mail.house.gov jeremy.haldeman@mail.house.gov eric.wortman@mail.house, govdan.easley@mail.house.gov, aaron.schmidt@mail.house.gov mike.goodman@mail.house.gov, erik.komendant@mail.house.gov meredith.salsbery@mail.house.gov, sean.obrien@mail.house.gov, erika.young@mail.house.gov, matthew.weisman@mail.house.gov, jeffrey.gabriel@mail.house.gov, marilyn.dillihay@mail.house.gov, nick.holder@mail.house.gov matt.chiller@mail.house.gov, christa.fornarotto@mail.house.gov
Back to top
Eric Kimmel
Southern Airboat Member
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 20
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject:
This is a more complete list of those to send no to HR2421
To: courtney.littig@mail.house.gov paul.kidwell@mail.house.gov susan.mcavoy@mail.house.gov, keith.pemrick@mail.house.gov hilary.cain@mail.house.gov, kim.thompson@mail.house.gov jeremy.haldeman@mail.house.gov eric.wortman@mail.house, govdan.easley@mail.house.gov, aaron.schmidt@mail.house.gov mike.goodman@mail.house.gov, erik.komendant@mail.house.gov meredith.salsbery@mail.house.gov, sean.obrien@mail.house.gov, erika.young@mail.house.gov, matthew.weisman@mail.house.gov, jeffrey.gabriel@mail.house.gov, marilyn.dillihay@mail.house.gov, nick.holder@mail.house.gov matt.chiller@mail.house.gov, christa.fornarotto@mail.house.gov, brian.waldrip@mail.house.gov, lindsay.bowers@mail.house.gov, pamela.day@mail.house.gov john.matim.lundquist@mail.house.gov paul.sawyer@mail.house.gov jacob.sciandra@mail.house.gov alex.richard@mail.house.gov, pamela.day@mail.house.gov sandra.breitengross@mail.house.gov tommy.sevier@mail.house.gov, chris.berardini@mail.house.gov, stephen.borg@mail.house.gov, joe.thomas@mail.house.gov, paul.sass@mail.house.gov, stephen.martinko@mail.house.gov kathee.facchiano@mail.house.gov, bill.tighe@mail.house.gov, lauren.robitaille@mail.house.gov ryan.young@mail.house.gov pete.Richards@mail.house.gov alan.knapp@mail.house.gov chris.miller@mail.house.gov, francis.gibbs@mail.house.gov meredith.bircher@mail.house.gov joe.lillis@mail.house.gov, terri.fish@mail.house.gov joe.jansen@mail.house.gov, sean.moran@mail.house.gov, dena.kozanas@mail.house.gov, jeff.ringer@mail.house.gov, max.goodman@mail.house.govutz@mail.house.gov, ryan.temme@mail.house.gov, matt.reiffer@mail.house.gov jim.coon@mail.house.gov, ryan.boyce@mail.house.gov
Back to top
Eric Kimmel
Southern Airboat Member
Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 20
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:12 pm Post subject:
Shorter version change around some and send to email addresses listed above
I do not support HR2421 it will only dilute the ability to enforce the Clean Water Act and create confusion in the application of this Act. Even a previous president of the National Wildlife Federation has co-signed a letter opposing this HR2421.
Further, the way HR2421 is worded it will be used to generate thousands of litigations against sportsman and women across the nation. There has already been litigation against a skeet club in which the shot falling the water, steel shot, was considered a fill item and a 404 permit required. It will stop hunting and fishing in or on waters in the USA because of this fill issue plus any action that disturbs the mud or bottom of the water body will be banned. This bottom disturbance is currently used in the navigable waters of the Florida Keys to stop boats from going in vast areas of this geographic area. Hence, you will not duck hunt or fish or cross any water body where you boat or boot disturbs the bottom.
Please vote no on HR2421.
Thank you for considering my thoughts