WEATHER FROM OUR SPONSORS
Re: Riparian buffer zone
I am strongly opposed to the newly proposed “Riparian Area buffer Zone Law” Here’s why.
1. First and foremost, simply due to the taking away of private property rights without due compensation.
2. It would lower property value by the restriction of use of the new buffer zone area.
3. There is no science available to support this proposal,. If a science existed, it should have been presented on the Sheridan County website.
4. The proposed exemption of agriculture which is the main contributor to poor water quality in this state is quite frankly ludicrous.
5. The subjective description of what is and what is not a riparian area, is to be determined by whom?
6. The subjective evaluation of any high water mark leaves ambiguity hovering over enforcement.
7. The poor manner in which this proposal was introduced via “county awareness workshops” conducted in areas exempt from this proposal, (thereby potentially garnishing support from those not adversely affected by it). This raises eyebrows to the county law making process.
8. The potential abuse of government powers by unfairly affecting a minority of small parcel land owners through restrictions on use of private property concerning an issue caused by a majority of exempt ‘agricultural’ operations.
9. The cost of a variance permit ($475), to request a freedom taken away by an eminent domain act which potentially has no merit.
Perceived unfair governing:
If our county is indeed being governed to “promote public health, safety, morals and general welfare of it’s residents as per the 2008 Sheridan County Comprehensive Plan,” I feel it should be done so in a fair and impartial manner according to those freedoms we all cherish by living in this country. This proposal is hardly fair nor impartial when considering the manner in which it was conceived, planned and sold to the county thus far. The conduct of awareness meetings held in exempt areas is quite alarming to me.
Held in the exempt city of Sheridan in which attendance was most assuredly by those unaffected.
As no science exists to justify this encroachment onto private lands, one has to ask… is this being done on a whim? On a trial basis? And, at the loss of my freedom as a land owner? Why should I be forced to submit $475 variance fee to request to do something I already have the freedom/right to do?
A parallel thought to ponder:
Let us use “better air quality” as yet another goal to obtain in attempting to effect the 2008 comprehensive plan for a better life in Sheridan County. As there does exist a science to associate poor air quality to smoking, why then do we not effect a law that bans all smoking on private property, inside homes and all the outdoors? If science indeed warns us of the perils of secondhand smoke doesn’t this logic then make sense? All non smokers would be exempt of course and this realization alone would obtain maximum support by those unaffected. It therefore would have the cherished appearance of public support albeit a bit askew to the untrained eye.
No, we cannot propose such a ban on smoking simply because it is too far a reach for government to do so. Even though science does exist to show us how smoking erodes our air quality.
Back now to the “Riparian Area Buffer Zone Proposal.”
How then does the county feel that it has the legal support to propose such a new regulation impacting us similarly as would a proposal to ban all smoking?
This potential ratcheting up of government control into our freedoms needs to be the topic of discussion here. It may very well be a bridge too far over the very water quality we seek to improve.
Latest posts by Outside Contributor (see all)
- Column: Jeb Bush’s foot-in-mouth problem — a failure to communicate - September 1, 2015
- Column: Summer flying by, but still fun to be had downtown - August 28, 2015
- Column: Affirming a right to die - August 28, 2015