Michigan Votes Forum

What exactly is the problem democrats have with property rights??? Leave people's riparian rights alone! Groundwater is NOT a public commodity-it is part of our property rights. If a property owner needs a permit, state and local govt can now refuse him a permit for a well or an occupance permit should he attempt to build on HIS OWN PROPERTY!! Farmers could be prevented from irrigating their own crops with ground water when necessary! There is NO reason for this other than to give government even more cotrol over individuals. Look what govt control over water has DONE in the west! Napa Valley now has 40% unemployment and people are losing their farms because govt owned the water and govt decuided to gicve the water to some damned smelt instead of the farmers. Do NOT allow these nutz in Lansing to do this!!

 No.!!!!  Get out of our lives !!  You people in Lansing have already caused too much damage to this State and the peope that are still in it.

Is this water use bill another way around "Eminent Domain"?  I oppose it.  I don't want any level of government having more control of my life.

I agree with comment #1.  It does seem this is a disguised eminent domain taking, which I oppose.

I have some experience with this concept of groundwater permitting.  I own a winery north of Suttons Bay. I was required, prior to opening the winery, to get a permit for groundwater disposal for a floor drain. Other wineries, evidently, have a grandfathered right to dispose of water on their property.  At first, this permit cost nothing.  However, when it was renewed, there was a budget shortfall and the legislature decided that this permit should now cost $1500/year.  I thought this charge was outrageous, so I delayed paying. Then the DEQ told me it was going to fine me $25,000 a day until it was paid.

I seems to me that most of these confiscatory regulations are merely enactments of boilerplates originally drafted by bankster trusts such as the Rockefeller Foundation.  These conspiracies want to reduce us ordinary people to the status of starving serfs.  After bankrupting us with their compound interest, they then want to take our land and recycle it into their mortgage scams.

Mr. Scripps, your proposal is braindead.

Warren Raftshol 

 Dan,

I oppose this bill because it is an example of a fuzzy bill opening the door to court interpetation of property rights of citizens.

George Paolacci

 This bill, although presented by Mr. Scripps, as being innocuous, would in fact lay the ground work to require regulation, metering and ultimately the sales of water resources to property owners, a property right that currently is inherit to property ownership. 

If one's neighbors, or perhaps "Water Police" deem one's water usage is too high, an investigation would be allowed to determine if "Usage is Too High", a rather nebulous term to say the least. 

Who will set the limit?

What is "TOO MUCH"? 

If one residence has 10 household members, water consumption, naturally, would be more than a household of 1, yet a complaint could be mandated exerting undue stress and potential hardship on the 'accused water waster".

Beware, BIG BROTHER will be watching your water usage!

 I'm sick to death of the political class trying to take my rights. I agree that's it's just a move for more eminent domain muscle. It wouldn't stop with water. The legislature needs to be reduced to part-time and unicameral with benefits only as long as you are elected. No more lifetime benefits. Maybe it would reduce the number of power hungry nuts from running.