Originally Posted By: sprkplug
I don't know if this is accurate or applicable, but this is pretty much how I see it.

Private Nuisance



Examples of private nuisances abound. Nuisances that interfere with the physical condition of the land include vibration or blasting that damages a house; destruction of crops; raising of a water table; or the pollution of soil, a stream, or an A private nuisance is an interference with a person's enjoyment and use of his land. The law recognizes that landowners, or those in rightful possession of land, have the right to the unimpaired condition of the property and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its occupation.underground water supply. Examples of nuisances interfering with the comfort, convenience, or health of an occupant are foul odors, noxious gases, smoke, dust, loud noises, excessive light, or high temperatures. Moreover, a nuisance may also disturb an occupant's mental tranquility, such as a neighbor who keeps a vicious dog, even though an injury is only threatened and has not actually occurred.

An attractive nuisance is a danger likely to lure children onto a person's land. For example, an individual who has a pool on his property has a legal obligation to take reasonable precautions, such as erecting a fence, to prevent foreseeable injury to children.

Trespass is sometimes confused with nuisance, but the two are distinct. A trespass action protects against an invasion of one's right to exclusive possession of land. If a landowner drops a tree across her neighbor's boundary line she has committed a trespass; if her dog barks all night keeping the neighbor awake, she may be liable for nuisance.

Full text here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Right+to+quiet+enjoyment


I have personal experience with the "excessive light" condition mentioned in the paragraph. Only time in my life I needed to enlist the services of an attorney, after all other diplomatic avenues had failed.



Spark, I agree with the premise of what you are saying, yet in an unzoned county, as most of rural America is, the only way to enforce a nuisance or non human trespass, is to file suit in court. How can one person's view of "enjoying" their land be unimpaired and not worthy protection of another? SOMEONE will feel their rights are being violated. As what you posted says in it's opening "A private nuisance is an interference with a person's enjoyment and use of his land. The law recognizes that landowners, or those in rightful possession of land, have the right to the unimpaired condition of the property and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its occupation."....That is all land owners, not just those feeling "offended". That is also exactly why law enforcement has no place deciding such things and civil courts are tasked after a petition is filed. Maybe you don't like seeing a neighbors car collection and consider it junk, while that neighbor can't stand the site or smell of your sugar shack...Who here is "offended" or has had "rights" violated?? In a city or area with zoning, there is a much more clear definition of what constitutes a nuisance. There are also code enforcement officers tasked with the fair compliance.

Good, reasonable people, SHOULD, talk to each other and work out mutually agreeable solutions. But in this entitled age where somehow not being offended has somehow become a Constitutional right, NO person can actually enjoy the rights mentioned above.

If you remember, I was involved in a 5 year legal battle over access to my land. the person blocking me was a resident of the area, we were not. Long story short, we were legally, illegally locked out of our property we'd built up over a 10 year period. The Missouri Constitution guarantees ingress and egress to land owned for "full enjoyment", yet our judge denied it, an appeals court upheld the decision, then sealed the case so it could no longer be appealed further....We were damaged over $350,000, rights clearly violated, but we still lost. IF this EPA rule somehow stands, within a year or two, you will not believe the control you are going to lose to "enjoy" your property rights.

You mentioned "wait and see"....I doubt we'd have to wait very long to see if this rule stands...