Taking of public property by private entities

[PLAYER57832]

I still don't understand what the concern is. The land was owned by private individuals. The government purchased the land, but not the mineral rights, reserving those to the original owners. The original owners could get the minerals so long as they didn't overly disturb the land.

Neither is this a Republican/Democrat thing either considering this has been around since 1981. I mean we've had three going on four Democratic administrations. You people are whackjobs sometimes (e.g. Player and oVo in this thread).

Accessing the minerals in this instance is so intrusive it prohibits surface uses for which the land was purchased.

Furthermore, Deep Hydraulic Fracking only started in the past few years... and uh, care to guess who was president in 1981? Per the "Democratic" bit, it sounds like you are trying to buy into this "you are either Republican or a Democrat" garbage. That is true in voting for the president and higher level offices, but not much beyond that.

[BigBallinStalin]

The Forest Service doesn't really care about the environment.

Unfortunately there is a lot of truth in this statement.

How about the taking of private property (people's homes) using eminent domain
then handing the properties over to developers, as was done in New Jersey during
the Bush administration? The landowners fought this acquisition of their homes all
the way to the Supreme Court, where a close vote gave them the final rodgering
before officially evicting them from their homes.

Eminent Domain was never intended or designed to acquire property for commercial
developers in the US, but this unprecedented action in New Jersey was upheld by the
highest court in the land. The entire situation was created by a developer's greed and
not the actual needs of the local community. Obviously the homeowners couldn't match
the political contributions of the wolf at their door and it helps to have friends in high
places.

Key words there "Bush administration".

So the Executive ordered this to occur?

And are you quite sure this was the Forest Service that did this?

I'm just wondering if you'd care to explain (1) how the Bush administration swayed the Supreme Court into ruling in favor of NJ and the developers, and (2) how the Bush administration is involved in the OP, and (3) what exactly was the role of the FS in all of this...

[thegreekdog]

I still don't understand what the concern is. The land was owned by private individuals. The government purchased the land, but not the mineral rights, reserving those to the original owners. The original owners could get the minerals so long as they didn't overly disturb the land.

Neither is this a Republican/Democrat thing either considering this has been around since 1981. I mean we've had three going on four Democratic administrations. You people are whackjobs sometimes (e.g. Player and oVo in this thread).

Accessing the minerals in this instance is so intrusive it prohibits surface uses for which the land was purchased.

Furthermore, Deep Hydraulic Fracking only started in the past few years... and uh, care to guess who was president in 1981? Per the "Democratic" bit, it sounds like you are trying to buy into this "you are either Republican or a Democrat" garbage. That is true in voting for the president and higher level offices, but not much beyond that.

Okay...

(1) There appear to be specific requirements that must be met in order for the private owner to access the minerals. If the private owner can't meet those requirements, tough shit for the private owner.

(2) Did you read the thing you posted? The reference to 1981 was a reference to a court decision, not a presidential decree. Therefore, no presidential influence there. Further, cases tend to take a while to get decided; therefore, it is likely that whatever happened in the 1981 case happened well before Ronald Reagan was president. I would look for more details but since you can't be bothered to read the thing you posted, why should I put any more effort in?

[saxitoxin]

I would look for more details but since you can't be bothered to read the thing you posted, why should I put any more effort in?

it's her computer's fault

[BigBallinStalin]

I would look for more details but since you can't be bothered to read the thing you posted, why should I put any more effort in?

it's her computer's fault

Blasted contraptions! With their keys and what not!

[PLAYER57832]

I'm just wondering if you'd care to explain (1) how the Bush administration swayed the Supreme Court into ruling in favor of NJ and the developers, and (2) how the Bush administration is involved in the OP, and (3) what exactly was the role of the FS in all of this...

First explain how this has to do with the US Forest Service.

If you want to get into a larger discussion of takings.. fine, but not this thread. And, though i cannot say 100% for sure with out seeing the details (funny how a few details can change the entire debate ), it does sound like a case of abuse of power. So, you are not arguing against me at any rate, unless the above is a distortion of what really happened.

[PLAYER57832]

Answering your posts, greekdog, but first, here is a new link that DOES go onto more detail. i was hampered a bit before because I had to pay to access the source I wanted online. (a nearby newspaper).

http://ecowatch.com/2012/oil-gas-drillers/

OH, one thing... ignore the picture at the top. its rather stupid of them to include it, because it shows what USED to be common. The current fracking sites are like small villages. of bare earth, buildings and vehicles, lights and noise.

[PLAYER57832]

I still don't understand what the concern is. The land was owned by private individuals. The government purchased the land, but not the mineral rights, reserving those to the original owners. The original owners could get the minerals so long as they didn't overly disturb the land.

Neither is this a Republican/Democrat thing either considering this has been around since 1981. I mean we've had three going on four Democratic administrations. You people are whackjobs sometimes (e.g. Player and oVo in this thread).

Accessing the minerals in this instance is so intrusive it prohibits surface uses for which the land was purchased.

Furthermore, Deep Hydraulic Fracking only started in the past few years... and uh, care to guess who was president in 1981? Per the "Democratic" bit, it sounds like you are trying to buy into this "you are either Republican or a Democrat" garbage. That is true in voting for the president and higher level offices, but not much beyond that.

Okay...

(1) There appear to be specific requirements that must be met in order for the private owner to access the minerals. If the private owner can't meet those requirements, tough shit for the private owner

Nope, that WAS the case, though not really, because the demands were actually reasonable, not prohibitive, now its "tough sh*t" for the public.

its like they are claiming that the only way to get their minerals is to strip mine and so too bad if the forest is lost in the mean time... and that is not a huge exaggeration.

(2) Did you read the thing you posted? The reference to 1981 was a reference to a court decision, not a presidential decree. Therefore, no presidential influence there. Further, cases tend to take a while to get decided; therefore, it is likely that whatever happened in the 1981 case happened well before Ronald Reagan was president. I would look for more details but since you can't be bothered to read the thing you posted, why should I put any more effort in?

It’s a tangled mess.

The 1981 ruling had largely to do with people who were actually homesteading on “mining claims”, particularly in northern California, but also elsewhere. The Allegheny Forest has been drilled almost since its inception, in a couple of cases maybe before (records are not clear on that, but oil and gas drilling began in the general area well before 1911). There are multiple high power gas lines running through the forest, other issues. None of them are managed without controversy, but the forest has largely “grown up” despite that. One reason a lot of activity was far less controversial here is because almost this entire forest is second growth (honestly, the small “old growth” patches are more of an eastern joke than anything biologically real). Given that the area looked a lot like a moonscape, people were more happy to see trees and wildlife return than upset that a few patches were interrupted by drill rigs. BUT, and this is very important, most of them were also largely hidden, small in size. Really, there was more impact from the clearing necessary for the high power lines running through the forest than for the drilling rigs, as far as most people were concerned.

There is just no comparison between those impacts and the impacts of the new frackers. Furthermore, each and every attempt local individuals AND now the US forest service are making to regulate these operations for pure safety and environmental concerns are being thwarted.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm just wondering if you'd care to explain (1) how the Bush administration swayed the Supreme Court into ruling in favor of NJ and the developers, and (2) how the Bush administration is involved in the OP, and (3) what exactly was the role of the FS in all of this...

First explain how this has to do with the US Forest Service.

If you want to get into a larger discussion of takings.. fine, but not this thread. And, though i cannot say 100% for sure with out seeing the details (funny how a few details can change the entire debate ), it does sound like a case of abuse of power. So, you are not arguing against me at any rate, unless the above is a distortion of what really happened.

You're the one bullshitting about "Bush administration" in oVo's post, but I'll let you run away from this one.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm just wondering if you'd care to explain (1) how the Bush administration swayed the Supreme Court into ruling in favor of NJ and the developers, and (2) how the Bush administration is involved in the OP, and (3) what exactly was the role of the FS in all of this...

First explain how this has to do with the US Forest Service.

If you want to get into a larger discussion of takings.. fine, but not this thread. And, though i cannot say 100% for sure with out seeing the details (funny how a few details can change the entire debate ), it does sound like a case of abuse of power. So, you are not arguing against me at any rate, unless the above is a distortion of what really happened.

You're the one bullshitting about "Bush administration" in oVo's post, but I'll let you run away from this one.

No, the point was it was not the Forest Service... and it was not current, either.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm just wondering if you'd care to explain (1) how the Bush administration swayed the Supreme Court into ruling in favor of NJ and the developers, and (2) how the Bush administration is involved in the OP, and (3) what exactly was the role of the FS in all of this...

First explain how this has to do with the US Forest Service.

If you want to get into a larger discussion of takings.. fine, but not this thread. And, though i cannot say 100% for sure with out seeing the details (funny how a few details can change the entire debate ), it does sound like a case of abuse of power. So, you are not arguing against me at any rate, unless the above is a distortion of what really happened.

You're the one bullshitting about "Bush administration" in oVo's post, but I'll let you run away from this one.

No, the point was it was not the Forest Service... and it was not current, either.

Eventually, you'll stop being vague.

Here's the question:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=187874#p4105952

[PLAYER57832]

I'm just wondering if you'd care to explain (1) how the Bush administration swayed the Supreme Court into ruling in favor of NJ and the developers, and (2) how the Bush administration is involved in the OP, and (3) what exactly was the role of the FS in all of this...

First explain how this has to do with the US Forest Service.

If you want to get into a larger discussion of takings.. fine, but not this thread. And, though i cannot say 100% for sure with out seeing the details (funny how a few details can change the entire debate ), it does sound like a case of abuse of power. So, you are not arguing against me at any rate, unless the above is a distortion of what really happened.

You're the one bullshitting about "Bush administration" in oVo's post, but I'll let you run away from this one.

No, the point was it was not the Forest Service... and it was not current, either.

Eventually, you'll stop being vague.

Here's the question:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=187874#p4105952

Right after you explain how the Forest Service was involved. Else, its a different topic.

[BigBallinStalin]

Since you don't care to explain the role of the Bush administration in eminent domain (your off-topic remark), then perhaps you can resume addressing TGD's on-topic remarks?

[oVo]

No, the point was it was not the Forest Service... and it was not current, either.

I said nothing about the "Forest Service" and the point was relative to the subject line in that it pertained to the taking of personal property (family dwellings) by commercial developers using eminent domain. Eminent domain is a tool of government and this New Jersey action was unprecedented in acquiring private property for use by commercial interests and not a necessary use by the city, county or state.

The people trying to save their homes appealed to representatives in higher government --Republican Congressmen and the President to stop this process and prevent developers from "acquiring" their residences in this manner-- and got nothing.

As far as the government protecting the environment goes, a friend gave several hundred thousand acres of pristine forest land to the US Forest Service thinking they would provide good stewardship of the land. The Forest Service in turn sold the logging rights and the entire region was clear cut while Shrub was in office. Legal proceedings are slow when dealing with the government, but you may eventually see this in the news too.

[thegreekdog]

Look Player, from this point forward, I'm going to ignore your arguments unless you provide something other than your own personal views on things. You need to provide some evidence of your claims or else you're not going to convince anyone of anything.

Nope, that WAS the case, though not really, because the demands were actually reasonable, not prohibitive, now its "tough sh*t" for the public.

its like they are claiming that the only way to get their minerals is to strip mine and so too bad if the forest is lost in the mean time... and that is not a huge exaggeration.

How do you know this?

It’s a tangled mess.

The 1981 ruling had largely to do with people who were actually homesteading on “mining claims”, particularly in northern California, but also elsewhere. The Allegheny Forest has been drilled almost since its inception, in a couple of cases maybe before (records are not clear on that, but oil and gas drilling began in the general area well before 1911). There are multiple high power gas lines running through the forest, other issues. None of them are managed without controversy, but the forest has largely “grown up” despite that. One reason a lot of activity was far less controversial here is because almost this entire forest is second growth (honestly, the small “old growth” patches are more of an eastern joke than anything biologically real). Given that the area looked a lot like a moonscape, people were more happy to see trees and wildlife return than upset that a few patches were interrupted by drill rigs. BUT, and this is very important, most of them were also largely hidden, small in size. Really, there was more impact from the clearing necessary for the high power lines running through the forest than for the drilling rigs, as far as most people were concerned.

There is just no comparison between those impacts and the impacts of the new frackers. Furthermore, each and every attempt local individuals AND now the US forest service are making to regulate these operations for pure safety and environmental concerns are being thwarted.

It's not really a tangled mess. Private owners come in, take the resources out of the ground, and put everything back the way it was. If they don't, there should be consequences. If there are not consequences, who do we blame? We blame corporate cronyism (not Republicans, not Democrats... the government). As oVo said, apparently New Jersey took private property and gave it to other private citizens; although he posted no links so I have on idea if that's true (but that's neither here nor there).

[oVo]

If I dig around there is bound to be info remaining on the web about [what I considered] the abuse of authority in New Jersey to take possession of those people's homes. It seems like the logic behind the city's action was "increasing the tax base" or some such BS, which is still not a legit use of eminent domain. The heavy handed politics feels more like socialism than the capitalist democracy that is supposed to be the rule of the land. I'm left wondering if political donations or some similar factor could have played a role, since it's difficult for any individual to compete with corporate clout.

The land that the Forest Service allowed to be clear cut is located in Idaho and included more than half of the acreage donated by my friend. Not sure what the government thinking there might have been for managing a pristine forest... maybe out of sight, out of mind.

[BigBallinStalin]

There's been a sharp uptick in eminent domain cases, ever since Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

[PLAYER57832]

No, the point was it was not the Forest Service... and it was not current, either.

I said nothing about the "Forest Service" and the point was relative to the subject line in that it pertained to the taking of personal property (family dwellings) by commercial developers using eminent domain. Eminent domain is a tool of government and this New Jersey action was unprecedented in acquiring private property for use by commercial interests and not a necessary use by the city, county or state

Yeah, I thought that was the case.

Each agency within the government is managed very, very differently with very different guidelines. One agency works essentially adversarially with other agencies, though not necessarily antagonistically. I won't get into all that, but the Forest Service is one of the agencies that manages public forests for public multiple uses.

They purchase and trade land, but not as you described. It is a real issue, just a completely different one. Really its like if I were to say "hey there is a problem with the NFL football"... and you came back with "but Baseball uses bats".

The people trying to save their homes appealed to representatives in higher government --Republican Congressmen and the President to stop this process and prevent developers from "acquiring" their residences in this manner-- and got nothing.

Again, this is a real issue, but not pertinent to this thread.

As far as the government protecting the environment goes, a friend gave several hundred thousand acres of pristine forest land to the US Forest Service thinking they would provide good stewardship of the land. The Forest Service in turn sold the logging rights and the entire region was clear cut while Shrub was in office. Legal proceedings are slow when dealing with the government, but you may eventually see this in the news too.

Now that is a Forest Service issue. However, the mistake that your friend made is in assuming that the Forest Service would not log. Logging is a big part of their mandate. In fact, they often get criticized for putting that above other multiple uses. That is a tangled debate and mess. (I can absolutely get into it, just not sure you really want to do so).

If he wanted to protect the land, he should have donated it to either another agency OR The Nature Conservancy (but they might not have kept that stretch unless he got an agreement for them to do so – they target specific areas for priority protection and will sell off many of the smaller, impractical holdings to buy other lands or will trade lands. There are some protected lands within National Forests, they are classified as wilderness. Recreation areas can be logged as well, but have a slightly higher level of protection and a slightly different mandate.

In rough, the parks are living museums , forest/rangelands are for those uses with other uses secondary (though that is a point of legal contention), wildlife reserves are to keep specific habitats for (a) specific animal(s). .. etc.

[PLAYER57832]

Look Player, from this point forward, I'm going to ignore your arguments unless you provide something other than your own personal views on things. You need to provide some evidence of your claims or else you're not going to convince anyone of anything.

Nope, that WAS the case, though not really, because the demands were actually reasonable, not prohibitive, now its "tough sh*t" for the public.

its like they are claiming that the only way to get their minerals is to strip mine and so too bad if the forest is lost in the mean time... and that is not a huge exaggeration.

How do you know this

Oh for heaven's sake. I did post articles, apparently you did not bother reading them. I also am living it. You can go into basically any local paper in Northcentral PA and southern NY and find a plethora of information on this. You don't find too much in scientific publications because things are advancing way too rapidly for that. It takes around 2 years, as a minimum to get something published in a scientific jourjnal other than quick blurbs in "science" and "nature".

It’s a tangled mess.

The 1981 ruling had largely to do with people who were actually homesteading on “mining claims”, particularly in northern California, but also elsewhere. The Allegheny Forest has been drilled almost since its inception, in a couple of cases maybe before (records are not clear on that, but oil and gas drilling began in the general area well before 1911). There are multiple high power gas lines running through the forest, other issues. None of them are managed without controversy, but the forest has largely “grown up” despite that. One reason a lot of activity was far less controversial here is because almost this entire forest is second growth (honestly, the small “old growth” patches are more of an eastern joke than anything biologically real). Given that the area looked a lot like a moonscape, people were more happy to see trees and wildlife return than upset that a few patches were interrupted by drill rigs. BUT, and this is very important, most of them were also largely hidden, small in size. Really, there was more impact from the clearing necessary for the high power lines running through the forest than for the drilling rigs, as far as most people were concerned.

There is just no comparison between those impacts and the impacts of the new frackers. Furthermore, each and every attempt local individuals AND now the US forest service are making to regulate these operations for pure safety and environmental concerns are being thwarted.

It's not really a tangled mess. Private owners come in, take the resources out of the ground, and put everything back the way it was.[/quote].
What on earth makes you think this is the case?
It certainly was not the case during most of the last century, when most logging happened and is not really the case on National Forests today.
In this case, that is plain not possible, AND the companies are fighting every kind of restriction “tooth and nail”.

If they don't, there should be consequences. If there are not consequences, who do we blame? We blame corporate cronyism (not Republicans, not Democrats... the government). As oVo said, apparently New Jersey took private property and gave it to other private citizens; although he posted no links so I have on idea if that's true (but that's neither here nor there).

Point to where I said this was a specific Republican or Democratic issue before you start harping on that. Really, it seems as if you have not even read most of what I wrote, never mind the links I posted.

And yes, it IS a tangled mess.

In this case, the issue is whether rights to take the minerals mean that all surface damage can be ignored. According to PA law, it can be. You may think otherwise, but that IS the law. The Federal government , the Forest Service, has been managing the forest under federal forest guidelines, BUT as the article I posted stated, that is what is being contested.

The judge who’s order got me to start this thread specifically stated that the company is free to ignore the surface and that the forest service cannot say anything.

In addition, the Corbet administration has eliminated the rights of local municipalities to have any say, even if their direct resources, like water and such are potentially impacted. “potential” has no sway. Even most actual damages are being ignored.

[PLAYER57832]

If I dig around there is bound to be info remaining on the web about [what I considered] the abuse of authority in New Jersey to take possession of those people's homes. It seems like the logic behind the city's action was "increasing the tax base" or some such BS, which is still not a legit use of eminent domain. The heavy handed politics feels more like socialism than the capitalist democracy that is supposed to be the rule of the land. I'm left wondering if political donations or some similar factor could have played a role, since it's difficult for any individual to compete with corporate clout.

I am not going to get into that because its just a completely different topic that belongs in its own thread.
To use that as an example of how the Forest Service is not public use is just wrong.

The land that the Forest Service allowed to be clear cut is located in Idaho and included more than half of the acreage donated by my friend. Not sure what the government thinking there might have been for managing a pristine forest... maybe out of sight, out of mind.

No, logging is a major mandate of the Forest Service. It was created to provide timber lands to supply the country's timber needs because companies were not able or willing to do so.

Part of that was that up until Gifford Pinchot began his campaign of teaching forestry, few thought timber could be truly regrown. Part of it is what we have seen all over the west in the past few decades.. namely that the profit margin for even big corporations like Domtar and Willamette is so slight that they can wind up selling land. Tax policies and land use rules have both helped and hindered the situation. In general, the tax policies favor the big guys can can penalize small holders like your friend.

[thegreekdog]

Okay, I clearly didn't get my point across.

(1) I have no problem with the private owner taking their resources and then putting the land back the way it was.

(2) I have a problem with the private owner not being able to take their resources merely because there is a threat they wouldn't put things back the way they were.

(3) I have a problem with the private owner being permitted to take their resources without putting things back the way they were.

So far, I don't see any evidence of #2 or #3 happening.

Here's a more onerous example of taking of public property by private entities.

http://www.stuarthsmith.com/feds-pave-w ... s-history/

Believe it or not Player, people that are like me (and BBS) have a super major problem with taking private property including taking private property and giving it to other, different private owners. Suffice it to say, private companies cannot get other peoples' lands without either paying for it or getting the government to give it to them. We see the latter happening more often here in Pennsylvania with the natural gas pipelines.

[thegreekdog]

There's been a sharp uptick in eminent domain cases, ever since Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

Public reaction to the decision was highly unfavorable.[19] Much of the public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Some in the legal profession construed the public's outrage as being directed not at the interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the broad moral principles of the general outcome.[20] Federal appeals court judge Richard Posner wrote that the political response to Kelo is "evidence of [the decision's] pragmatic soundness." Judicial action would be unnecessary, Posner suggested, because the political process could take care of the problem."[21][22]

Opposition to the ruling was widespread, coming from groups such as AARP, the NAACP, the Libertarian Party and the Institute for Justice. Many owners of family farms also disapproved of the ruling, as they saw it as an avenue by which cities could seize their land for private developments.

On June 23, 2006, the first anniversary of the original decision, President George W. Bush issued an executive order[29] instructing the federal government to restrict the use of eminent domain

...for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Apparently doesn't much matter because the federal government doesn't do a lot of taking, but... whatever.

I also recall this with some fondness.

http://rense.com/general69/souter.htm

[oVo]

Putting the land back as it was is a big problem. Once a mountain has been topped or an open pit mine has been dug, the land will never regain it's former beauty. Likewise an "old growth" forest is not something that can be easily restored and it's difficult for anyone to justify clear cutting as responsible use. Particularly when their destruction is driven by greed and instant financial gratification with no regard for the environment once the resource is extracted and spent.

A similar abuse was the plowing up of the prairies after WWI that created the Dust Bowl. A decade of huge paydays finally went bust. In Texas alone there exists less than one tenth of one percent of the native prairies, which were once --along with the migrating herds of buffalo-- an entire ecosystem of their own.

The EPA and other federal agencies have made some progress in the areas of responsible land use post WWII. Except these organizations can't keep up with the demands of monitoring the vast industrial complex that harvests, manufactures, distributes, pollutes and employs new technology all across North America.

Fracking is just one more industry with many unanswered questions about the process and results. Billions of dollars have been spent to promote a positive identity and reassure citizens who have doubts about it's effect on the environment.

[BigBallinStalin]

There's been a sharp uptick in eminent domain cases, ever since Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

Public reaction to the decision was highly unfavorable.[19] Much of the public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Some in the legal profession construed the public's outrage as being directed not at the interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the broad moral principles of the general outcome.[20] Federal appeals court judge Richard Posner wrote that the political response to Kelo is "evidence of [the decision's] pragmatic soundness." Judicial action would be unnecessary, Posner suggested, because the political process could take care of the problem."[21][22]

Opposition to the ruling was widespread, coming from groups such as AARP, the NAACP, the Libertarian Party and the Institute for Justice. Many owners of family farms also disapproved of the ruling, as they saw it as an avenue by which cities could seize their land for private developments.

On June 23, 2006, the first anniversary of the original decision, President George W. Bush issued an executive order[29] instructing the federal government to restrict the use of eminent domain

...for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Apparently doesn't much matter because the federal government doesn't do a lot of taking, but... whatever.

I also recall this with some fondness.

http://rense.com/general69/souter.htm

Right, right, but that's at the federal level, and only for federal government dealings. The issue largely revolves around municipal courts cases--which apparently are not within the realm of federal government's direct dealings.

I went to a lecture and had a conversation about this--about 3 years ago. The Kelo case is controversial because many municipal governments use it to justify their use of eminent domain. Since that case, the number of similar cases has quickly gone up (can't remember exactly, but it's about 3 or 4 times as much--because that case is used as precedence for violating private property rights).

[PLAYER57832]

Okay, I clearly didn't get my point across.

(1) I have no problem with the private owner taking their resources and then putting the land back the way it was.

Impossible, not just difficult, but impossible.

(2) I have a problem with the private owner not being able to take their resources merely because there is a threat they wouldn't put things back the way they were.

How about because they are actively damaging other people's use.

Also we are not just talking about the "threat" we are talking about specific mitigations that will ensure the land can be restored to the extent possible... not full return is not possible.. This is not just some esoteric idea, it is proven truth and reality.\

((3) I have a problem with the private owner being permitted to take their resources without putting things back the way they were.

Ecosystems have tipping points. They can take a LOT of damage, but exceed that tipping point and there is no restoration.

Beyond that, we have no way to remove most of the chemicals used in the fracking process from water once they enter. We are talking PERMANENT here. By saying this is OK, you are saying that its perfectly OK for a company to come in for a few years, do what they feel they can afford (they are specifically ignoring many USFS requirements, do't have to honor municipal demands at all.. and if 5, 10, 50 or 100 years down the road our water happens to be infiltrated and poisoned... tough luck on us.

((So far, I don't see any evidence of #2 or #3 happening.

Read the articles again.

Here's a more onerous example of taking of public property by private entities.
http://www.stuarthsmith.com/feds-pave-w ... s-history/

I will look at that separately.

Believe it or not Player, people that are like me (and BBS) have a super major problem with taking private property including taking private property and giving it to other, different private owners. Suffice it to say, private companies cannot get other peoples' lands without either paying for it or getting the government to give it to them. We see the latter happening more often here in Pennsylvania with the natural gas pipelines.

The problem is that you believe this to be true, and basically don’t understand why its not true because it involves natural resources.

Natural resources are not just replacable and reparable. The Allegheny is unique in that it began as an almost entirely second growth, denuded forest. What was here originally is already gone. Cut a stretch of timber, and it CAN be largely regrown, regenerated. Species here, for the most part, can withstand some major impacts because they have already done so. However, there is still a tipping point. Also, it has taken a LOT of unified effort and unified work by not just the federal government, but by state, local entities and private individuals to bring the forest back. These companies are not only not going to do that, they are arguing they are not required to pay any attention to any requirements or even requests made by any other entity.

They are arguing that their right to access these minerals supercedes everybody else’s rights.. including the public’s right to access water resources, which do not stay on a single site.

So, its not even just the surface rights and uses that they are ignoring, but also our rights to water, one of the most basic and fundamental.. and soon to be most limited resources in the country.