MW> The fact is that so many people have dammed, diverted, and
  >> otherwise screwed up creeks and rivers that effect others
  >> downstream and the overall health of the ecosystem that severe
  >> regulation and permitting has been opposed.
 > 
 > The above sentence doesn't make sence.
 
You're right, I don't know where that "opposed" came from, but hopefully you 
were able to deduce the point.
 
 > First, who says 'so many people...screwed up streams.' Sure there 
 > has been abuses, but who says that representitive of 'so many?' I think
 > you are misrepresenting facts, here.
 
No, you choose to ignore the facts in favor of your own agenda. 
 
 > As for as this 'overall health of the eco-system' crap. You are 
 > saying that we need 'severe regulation' because of a few abuses. You don't
 
I did not say that. You put words in my mouth, like "few abuses". I also did 
not say that we "need" severe regulation, but that is what was proposed. The 
point is that strong regulation was proposed (and then watered down by the 
rape and pillage agenda of big business) because of many people, not too 
unlike yourself, that insist on being able to screw up entire ecosystems for 
their personal gain while using "property rights" as a shield for their 
reed.
 
 > seem to care much about individual property rights. Maybe it's 
 > because you don't own any property. But, I do, and the federal government
 > apparently thinks that all property is effectivly theirs. After all
 > you have no right to telll me what I can and can't do with my
 > property, but the government thinks it does.
 
The federal government should think that property is to be treated with 
repect (not that it is theirs as you state), and most people with more than 
half a functioning brain realize that it's only the government that can 
protect our natural resources from people like you.
 
But don't get me wrong, I am not an apologist for government. I wish they 
would do a better job, cheaper, and with far less influence from corporate 
raiders. The main problem with gov't. is not that it hurts the little guy 
(though it sometimes does), but that it kowtows to industry and "property 
rights" fanatics and puts industry profit ahead of long term needs and goals.
 
I "own" (more like manage, but with a mortgage) acreage with year around 
creeks and a solar electric home in a clearing in the redwoods. I am very 
lucky to live in such a wonderful place, and I go out of my way to be a 
steward to the land. Unfortunately, some upstream neighbors don't have that 
kind of respect and have seriously abused the watershed. What someone does on 
their land has an effect on the rest of us. The biggest problem is that our 
government let them get away with the abuses.
 
The problem with your proposed kind of land ownership is that your deed gives 
you your rights on the land (which you might like to abuse), but deeds 
unfortunately don't outline what your responsibilities are. That's why our 
legislature has felt the need to pass protections which require that the 
bureaucrats enact regulations.
 
 MW> Who's to guarantee that you wouldn't be one of those selfish
  >> desecrators of our streams?
 > 
 > It's called dammages. If you do something that adversly affects me, I
 > can sue you for dammages. I have to wait for you to dammage me,
 > however, or prove that what you are doing will dammage me.
 
Oh, oh... another suit-happy person. Sorry, that legal experiment failed a 
long time ago, requiring the need for legislated regulation. The environment 
can't hire a lawyer to sue you. And once the damage is done, a lawsuit can't 
fix it.
 
 > MW> Maybe you aren't, but I'd rather see the regs in there to make
 >> sure you do the job right.
 > 
 > That's not what 'the regs' are for in many cases. They are there to
 > (1) take money in the form of fees, and (2) limit, or prevent you 
 > from doing certain things. And, since so many eco-wackos have taken 
 > control of the asylem (the government burocracy) they made it a crime to 
 > fill in a misquitto breeding, mud hole by calling them 'vernal pools.' 
 > They made private property worthless because of some stuipd flower the 
 > size of your thumbnail, they..... 
 
2 yes, but 1 is a necessary evil to protect the environment from land raping 
wackos.
  
 > hell, this ain't the echo for this.
 
The only thing you've said so far that doesn't reflect selfishness.
 
 > Some regulation, ie. that authorized by the Constitution, is okay by
 > me. The regulation I see today is neither Constitutional or even
 > American. Communists don't mind, however.
 > 
 > That's what bugs me.
 
I like it that it bugs you. Red-baiting nazis need to be bugged. 
 
So, zip off another spiteful letter. You'll get in the last word if you do.
--- FLAME v1.1
---------------