close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Issue 3

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by creekwalker, Oct 28, 2008.

  1. creekwalker

    creekwalker Moving water...

    658
    0
    821
    I tried to search for this topic, but the search ignores the 3, so forgive me if the topic has already come up and kindly point me to the right post.

    I was brushing up on the issues for the upcoming election and came across Issue #3. It seems to be protecting "PRIVATE PROPERTY
    RIGHTS IN GROUND WATER, LAKES AND OTHER WATERCOURSES", but it also talks about possible government management in cases, potential to transferring rights to the government, use for public welfare, etc. Does anyone else have any insight into how this may or may not affect fishing whether or not you own the property that borders a stream or a stream that crosses your land? I know the whole riparian topic has been well trodden on the forums but I didn't know if this adds a new wrinkle or specifically sides with the property owner.

    You can see the info here http://www.ohioelectioncentral.com/issues.aspx

    CW
     
  2. cantsleep

    cantsleep 3rd shift blues

    424
    0
    371
    'cause I'm not even sure what this Constitutional ammendment means. Seems like it just reaffirms what the law already says, but gives it added importance.
    I'd really like to know more about why this was brought forward.

    Good find, I'd not neven heard of this issue until now.
     

  3. I know part of what it is protecting is the statewide water rights, Lake Erie was already protected but this includes Inland water. For example, Nestle ( Bottled Water) tried to purchase land near the Mad River ( Urbana) and had submitted permits to take about a million gallons a day or so from the aquifer, no one was happy with that and the EPA and others slowed the process down enough that they moved elsewhere. This new law is "supposed" to protect the states water suplies so folks can not make a profit off of the states water. There have been plans for years to pump water from SW Ohio ( biggest aquifer east of the Missisippi) along Rt 70 out West to where it is like gold.
    I am sure the state is trying to protect the ground water but............from what I understand, places like commercial farmers, greenhouses, florists and the like will and may now have to be permitted to take water to use it for commercial reasons so this is where the states power over the water effects private individuals. I am no lawyer but our Trout Unlimited followers have tried to explain this to us as well as me hearing a 1 hr dedicated segment on it from a radio talk show.
    This is all I know about it and no where have i heard anything about changing what the state already considers about movig water ( owned by the state) and this is pertaining to deep conical injection wells and groundwater.

    Just my small input as I would like to hear more aboutthis as well.
    Salmonid
     
  4. creekwalker

    creekwalker Moving water...

    658
    0
    821
    Thanks for the link to the other post. I'm not sure how much it helps me though. With the other viewpoints, many of which make sense, I'm not sure which way to vote. It seems like there are pros and cons to it both ways!

    CW