A Reason To Vote?

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by streamstalker, Oct 9, 2008.

  1. streamstalker

    streamstalker deleted

    I know that this web site steers away from politics, but I got my absentee ballot yesterday and noticed this issue of which I was unaware. My intent in putting this here is not to start a debate, but to see if anyone has any input on how this may affect the fishing community to which we belong. Or would it have any impact at all?

    ISSUE #3

    (Proposed by Joint Resolution of the General Assembly of Ohio)
    To adopt Section 19b of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Ohio
    Purpose: The purpose of Amended Substitute Senate Joint Resolution Number 8 (SJR 8) is to protect the rights of Ohio’s property owners, Ohio’s natural resources, and the maintenance of the stability of Ohio’s economy by explicitly recognizing under the constitution the property interests in ground water, lakes, and watercourses.

    The Property Interests of Private Property Owners: SJR 8 would make explicit the property right of a private property owner in the reasonable use of the ground water underlying the property owner’s land.

    SJR 8 would also make explicit the property right of a private property owner who owns land that borders a lake or watercourse in the reasonable use of the water in a lake or watercourse located on or flowing through the owner’s land.

    An owner of land may voluntarily convey to a governmental body the owner’s property interest held in ground water underlying the land or nonnavigable waters located on or flowing through the land.

    Also, the state and a political subdivision, to the extent authorized by state law, may provide for the regulation of such waters.

    Property Right is Subordinate to Public Welfare: SJR 8 makes clear that the property rights described under the proposed amendment are subject to the public welfare.

    Application of Public Trust Doctrine: This proposed amendment does not affect the public’s use of Lake Erie and other navigable waters of the state. The public trust doctrine does not apply to ground water underlying privately owned land and nonnavigable waters located on or flowing through privately owned land.

    Prevents Rights from being Impaired: The rights confirmed under this proposed
    amendment cannot be impaired or limited by the operation of other sections of the Ohio Constitution, including provisions governing home rule powers of a county, township, or municipal corporation; Public Debt and Public Works; conservation of natural resources; and the prohibition of the use of “initiative” and “referendum” on property taxes.

    If approved, this proposed amendment will be effective December 1, 2008.
  2. Lewzer

    Lewzer Powderfinger

    I've heard nothing about issue 3. Didn't even know we were to vote on this.
    So, in plain English, what does a yes or no vote mean? What is the driver behind this piece of legislation?

  3. If you can find a plain English answer please let me know :) I have been reading & reading and am getting more confused the more I read :( I am not so sure that there is a good answer right now for that issue!!!!
  4. I find it rather funny that an amendment to the Ohio Constitution is on the ballot and no one has heard about it. Look around the net a little and from what little i was able to find, the amendment seem to be in responce to the Great Lakes Water Compact. The Great Lakes Water Compact is a federal bill which would protect lake and ground water from being deverted. Issue three apears to have been proposed due to some of the working in the bill and ment to protect land owners rights to use ground and lake water on their property. It would appear to have no impact on fishing or access to fishing waters. If you have a well on your property that uses ground water or use your private lake for water then I would suggest voting yes. I don't think it will have much of an effect either way.
  5. Support
    Sen. Tim Grendell, a Cleveland-area Republican and the property-rights resolution's sponsor, contends that the water compact would trample private property rights by designating groundwater as publicly owned.[2]

    House Democratic Leader Rep. Joyce Beatty of Columbus led the move against adoption of the ballot issue resolution. She said she wasn't certain the property-rights protections belonged in the constitution, where passage by voters would place it, and that Grendell was trying to strong-arm lawmakers.[2]

    It was Senate vs. House on this issue. In general, the opposing Democrats gave the Republicans a long and hard fight. Republicans refused to give the "ok" on the Water Compact until an agreement was reached on the constitutional amendment. In early June, a compromise was finally reached and the amendment was approved. Once the House took that action, the Senate swiftly and unanimously passed the compact.
  6. symba

    symba Kayak Conquistador

    Link goes to a wiki site with no text...

    Issue 3 sounds like it protects what is already in the law, ensuring the rights of surface and subsurface water flows on private property. But I dont speak politician; only english, math, science, and fishing.
  7. Strange ?
    Further check says this might be a virus so don't use this link ?
    I pulled the text out of here and then they must have changed the web site ? ?
  8. CDL


    I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but can anyone tell me what the law is regarding public waters on private lands? For example, I sometimes fish under the bridges along Big Darby. How far along the bank can I go before I'm off public land? Also, if I'm wading, how far up or down the water can I go?
  9. There is a thread about this.

    If you stay withing the roadway right-of-way under a bridge you are probably OK with land owners. Maybe not with Homeland Security, County, Township etc.

    Step on the bottom outside the right of way, not public land, you are trespassing.
  10. What I understand is that there may be big business interest in the water that is in the Great Lakes. Water diversions to agricultural land and sales to states out west have been discussed. The Great Lakes Water Compact protects the Great Lakes from these business practices. Issue 3 was designed to get around the compact by allowing drilling for water on private land that abuts Lake Erie, allowing companies to access Lake Erie via the water table. In short, voting yes allows big business access to Lake Erie water, while voting no closes the loophole and protects the water.
  11. streamstalker

    streamstalker deleted

    Okay, that makes some sense. Still, saying that it's in the interest of "big business" is sort of a loaded term that makes most of us have a knee jerk reaction against it--me included. Has anyone heard anything else?

    I saw a story similar to this where a bunch of people in Vermont were raising accusations against Poland Spring Water, owned by Nestle--a foreign company and the biggest food product company in the world--because of what they perceived to be a negative impact on their water table.
  12. Moonlighter

    Moonlighter Banned

    If it's about keeping water private and where it is, then I'm in favor of that. With the the rising population and melting polar caps, fresh, drinkable water is going to become great issue for all people, all over. Wars get started over such things! The Great Lakes are the largest source of fresh water on the planet so I think a vote to protect what's here to keep it here is in every local residents best interest. As the earth starts to run out of drinkable water, thirsty people are not going to care about the Walleye or Perch population in a particular lake. Have a look at Lake Mead's water levels if you want to see how little a society cares about draining a watershed.
  13. Heres a reply I received from my state senator;

    I sent you a copy of the ballot board’s official explanation. I believe it protects property owner’s underground water rights and it became an issue with the passage of the Great Lakes Compact, as one legislator from the Cleveland area, Rep. Tim Grendell, could not be assured that property owner’s ground water rights were protected, thus they did the ballot issue to assure everyone that no property owner lost water rights under their properties. That is my informal explanation and I hope it makes sense. The issue is probably extraneous, but it is an assurance of no change for property owners. Katherine, leg. Assist. To Rep. Stabile Harwood 614 466-3488