I had a few Questions about the state paying for my pond. I was going to pay for it and the state looked at it and said if i did it there way and got into there program than they would pay for it. I dont know all the rules i got to go buy yet and was wondering if there is anything i need to look out for. All they have told me so far is that i would haft to run pipes out of it to water trofs so the cattle could drink from it. Was wondering if anyone has ever done this before. thanks
I don't particularly like lawers, but if you do not understand what your getting into, get a lawer to help you. The alternative is gambling.
I'm hurt, RAH - but how do you feel about attorneys?
As for fucemup's question, any time you have the state pay for something and get involved, you're going to give something up, irrevocably in all likelihood, and that needs to be taken into consideration. Tread cautiously with this sort of proposal and make sure that you have a full understanding of the terms and conditions the state will impose on you before you sign your name to anything. Once your name is on the bottom line, it will likely take the moving of mountains to get you out of that compromised position. Just my .02.
I don't particularly like lawers, but if you do not understand what your getting into, get a lawer to help you. The alternative is gambling.
Hmmmm! I'm not a lawyer. But, some of my best friends play lawyer, just not on TV.
Now, onto my soap box . . .
Here on Pond Boss, one of my closest confidants is a lawyer.
Another friend here on Pond Boss is a long-time moderator. He knows more about fish and ponds than many professional aquaculturists. He and his lovely wife are two of the finest human beings I've ever met.
Another very close friend of about 35 years was converted from a lawyer into a judge. I can't imagine anybody better to be a family law judge. He and I probably served thousands of hours of community service -- but who is counting?
Another old friend of nearly 40 years, who was an early employee of mine was frustrated that he had to pay an elite group of lawyers a lot of money to register parts of a hobby that he enjoyed. While he worked for me, he went to law school at night and got his JD. He is now a member of the bar in four states, but only to help hobbyists in his niche. He continues to work as an electrical engineer.
I could go on and on about friends with law degrees and who are members of various bar associations.
I can only say, there are far more moral, ethical, friendly, helpful, and just wonderful people, who serve as lawyers, than TV and the press lead us to believe.
Again, I stress I am not a lawyer. I'm far from wealthy. But, I feel extremely fortunate to count some of my closest friends as lawyers.
Ken
All right! I'm off my soap box. Let's go back to being friends who enjoy pond management, fishing, and good friends -- no matter their occupation!
My wife calls me a natural lawer when she is mad at me. I only went against lawers once but came out on top because they were less than smart or, more importanlty, right. I am about to give up a permanent dead easament for a wetland mitigation, but I understand what I am giving up. I just want to advise others to be cautious if they are less confident in thier abilities to understand the consiquences of their agreements.
Like everybody else said, be very watchful for what the state is asking in return.
Years back the State would furnish fish to stock your pond with, free. Sounds good, right? The catch was once they did that, you had no control over who fished your pond because the "people of Indiana" furnished the fish.
Does that sound right Cecil? Or am I remembering it all wrong? (It wouldn't be the first time!)
I think this is a werry interesting subject not about lawyers they are good and bad people like any other kind of people.
The interesting part is what do I have to think about when tax money is spent on my privat pond/marsh/forest or land in general.
All over the western world (America, Europe and Down under) we live in democratic countrys, that will fullfil the UN (United Nations) ruling on human rights. Right to clean water is wery high on this list, to avoid wars. We have seen it lately new clean water acts or directives all over. To acomplish or achive the goals set, there is an will be spent a tremendous amount of money, to clean up public and privat waterways, ponds lakes.......... (law/rules are the same). The gowernments (poiticians) can either force upon us (privat) or tempt us to do it woulenterlie by throwing tax-money at us (the generale aproache is to compensate all over the western world but at some point any governemente will enforce to achive)
So my point getting public funding diferentiate in Norway, Canada, US, Australia.........., We (privat pond owners) have something in comon, there is going to be a set off rules to reelease tax funding Maybe loss of exsclusive rights maybe not? Differente or variations of such will be woorked out along the way. It's good for me if the creeck, or watershed upstream gets cleaned up, so I don't have a constant uphill battle on my down stream property, seems unfair dough that my neighbor get my tax money to clean up his own sh..t or dump........... wilst I that have spent all my time an substantiall amounts off money on the watershed allways...........?
I do embrace the water directive also the biodiversety directive both are good for the natur I love, but there is a catch. I'm werry werry sceptical to the way politicians/teknokrates spend money (on behalf of us all). I would like to be on the receving end, it would shurely axcselerate my goals(on my private property). BUT I am insecure about the future what is it that I don't know? What should I think about? This can be a win win situation, but I'm sitting on the fence scrathcing my head.
Please start discusing/thinking out loud, how you all Pondmeisters think about what sort of bonds should be applied to recive taxfunding on the private water. The law makers met, discuss and glance/learn from each other all across the world, and ewry so often adopt each others way. To me this is not politics its a new tool available but do I deare use it? How can I(WE) set the rules on this or at least influence on the matter?
i have done several of them in oklahoma but never to a trough. they always go to a freeze proof concrete tank that controls the water level with a float. they work good will post pic of one i did about 4 yrs ago in stillwater oklahoma which the nrcs co-payed on. i havent heard owner mention any probs coming back on him from the state but you never know
THATS TRUE IT WOULD. THIS PARTICULAR LAND OWNER IN STILLWATER SAID HE LOSES ABOUT 20 HEAD OF CATTLE PER YEAR FROM FALLING THRU ICE. I HAVE ALSO SEEN UP TO 20 HEAD DEAD IN A POND FROM GETTING STUCK IN THE MUD WHEN WE HAD A DROUGHT A FEW YEARS BACK. IT WAS A VERY NASTY POND TO CLEAN OUT.
Thanks everyone. I don't think I am going to let the state do anything. I don't want anyone telling me what I can and cannot do on my own property. Thanks for everything
Well if tax money is going to support a landowners efforts, it should have a public benefit, although some of the public benefit of recent spending eludes me.
I totally agree it should benefit the public to spend money on any privat or public land or bow. And it does, when you clean up old dumps, poisoning or poluting downstream. A lot of differente junk has been dug down or left on the ice of a bow thruout the years(out off sight out off mind), this is not nececeraly dumped by the land owner or by earlier owners, it's impossible to trace back how it got there. The majoriety off land owners doesen't care or don't even know, but it still have a down stream impact, and at the time some off the dumping happend, there was no rules/regulationes phrohibitting it. As for cows or any life stock, the rulings at least here are the easy part to agree upon, the buffer zone towards the watershed that should not be fertelized/plowed/....... also easy to understand and serves the purpose so no problem. What makes me not just grabing the funding and asking for the taxcuts is my worries about future obligationes or things that are not put in wrighting(things I did not forsee) that can be disputed for the years ahead.
So thaughts on that matter would be nice. The funds and tax benefits are there so its not a question about for or against, its more deare I use it, and what reservationes should be put in the agreements on future ???