"Rich Stern" wrote in message
...
So if the COE only controls a little strip of land, what are they
going to
transfer to the state? Sounded like a whole bunch of land
surrounding the
res.
was federal property.

With the exception of campgrounds and ramp/parking areas, it is only a
small
strip of land, defined by elevation below a certain point above sea
level. On
my property, it translates to about 200 feet from the waterline. It
depends on
the topology.

I don't know the acreage, perhaps in the many thousands, but quite
literally in
the shape of a thin, hollow slice, ghosting the border of the
waterline, across
many counties, and two states. Roads and utilities to the land would
require
ridiculous easements. Any development would take place very close to
the lake,
and would obviously be more envrionmentally impactful than the buffer
the COE
currently has established. It's heavily wooded and very clean land
because the
COE does a nice job of preventing people from messing it up.


So the COE has the job of enforcing regs on tens/hundreds of miles by
200 feet or so of land? Sounds like a big job. Perhaps they could sell
it to the folks who adjoin it? Then it's not their problem, the state
gets its tax base, and the existing property owners don't get abused. I
know that having the gubmint provide it free is a nice little perk, but
most of it doesn't really serve the common good. If a random individual
from Minnesota were to show up, what would he be allowed to do on this
public land? Can I hike? Camp? Have a party? Use the Beach?

Del

Yes to all of those questions. The COE manages to surrounding land so the
lake does not fill up with silt. They also make sure that there are plenty
of public access for boat ramps, public parks and beaches and areas for
fishing and camping.

The COE manages the surrounding land to insure the long term benefit for
everyone, not the short term benefit for a few.


"del cecchi" wrote in message
...

"Rich Stern" wrote in message
...
So if the COE only controls a little strip of land, what are they
going to
transfer to the state? Sounded like a whole bunch of land
surrounding the
res.
was federal property.

With the exception of campgrounds and ramp/parking areas, it is only a
small
strip of land, defined by elevation below a certain point above sea
level. On
my property, it translates to about 200 feet from the waterline. It
depends on
the topology.

I don't know the acreage, perhaps in the many thousands, but quite
literally in
the shape of a thin, hollow slice, ghosting the border of the
waterline, across
many counties, and two states. Roads and utilities to the land would
require
ridiculous easements. Any development would take place very close to
the lake,
and would obviously be more envrionmentally impactful than the buffer
the COE
currently has established. It's heavily wooded and very clean land
because the
COE does a nice job of preventing people from messing it up.


So the COE has the job of enforcing regs on tens/hundreds of miles by
200 feet or so of land? Sounds like a big job. Perhaps they could sell
it to the folks who adjoin it? Then it's not their problem, the state
gets its tax base, and the existing property owners don't get abused. I
know that having the gubmint provide it free is a nice little perk, but
most of it doesn't really serve the common good. If a random individual
from Minnesota were to show up, what would he be allowed to do on this
public land? Can I hike? Camp? Have a party? Use the Beach?

Del

"DSK" wrote in message
...


del cecchi wrote:


You guys get free use of resources the rest of the country
subsidizes,
the quality is great, the cost is very low. Of course you don't
complain. :-)

Explain again please why the taxpayers of Minnesota or Mississippi
should pay money so that you folks can have lake cabins for almost
free?

Because we pay taxes so that you can have flood control dams, locks, &
levees (along with FEMA insurance for when those things are
overwhelmed) for
almost free.

Got no levees in Minnesota. The dams and locks are not for flood
control but for navigation. Same with the wing dams, closing dams and
dredges ruining the backwaters. All for the barges going down the
mississippi. Take them all out. fine with me. I didn't ask for them
in the first place. They dredge the channel and dump the spoil on the
bank. Then we have to dodge the barges and watch the backwaters die.

I don't agree with fema making people who build in flood zones and on
the coastal beaches whole everytime their house washes away either.

del




And what about the folks in the area who didn't get in on the gravy?
They are paying more taxes than they would if you guys had to pay
market
type taxes.

Just a contrary point of view. Same thing happened here in
Minnesota
with state land in the school trust that was supposed to be
generating
money for schools, but was being leased for cabins on lakes at way
below
market rates with no property tax on the land. Took a lawsuit to
fix
it.

Like I said.... greed & human nature... and the light of publicity...

DSK

Rich Stern wrote:
Rep. Charlie Norwood of Georgia's 9th congressional district, has introduced a
bill (HR 2753, link below) to have the Army Corp of Engineers cede federal
lands above the full pool line of Lakes Hartwell, Russel and Strom Thurmond to
the local counties.

IMO, bad idea. (In the interest of full disclosu I own a lakeside cabin
adjacent to land managed by the COE)

I have been very impressed with how the COE manages lakes. The natural beauty
is preserved, inexpensive power gets generated, floods are controlled,
reservoirs are maintained, and citizens enjoy many recreational opportunities.
An example of a successful federal program that serves it's stated purpose and
benefits millions of people. In other words, a rare success.

If the local counties in Georgia and South Carolina gain control of this land,
it will become a development free-for-all. The local governments have no
experience managing this land, and cannot possibly be expected to maintain the
balance of interests the COE has done so well for decades. Each county will
take a different approach, and the lakes will experience the impact of widely
differing policies that will unpredictably impact the local economy,
environment, residents and visitors.

If you think you might be impacted by this change, I urge you to read the bill
and send your comments to Rep. Norwood.

Link to the proposed bill:

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr2753.html

Link to Rep. Norwood's House web site:

http://www.house.gov/norwood/


-- Rich Stern
www.nitroowners.com - The Nitro and Tracker Owners Web Site
www.mypontoon.com - The Pontoon Boat Web Site
www.fishingreportdatabase.com - The Fishing Report Database
www.mysporttrac.com - The Sport Trac Web Site


Very interesting post Rich:
I am considering getting a small place on Hartwell myself as I am
located on hwy85 20 some miles north of Atlanta. And would like to
retreat to somthing not as busy as Lanier. The COE does a nice job of
keeping lots of public access on Lanier (as you most likely know) This
bill is rather interesting and I am suspicious as well that there is not
some unspoken development planed.

I have only been on Hartwell a couple of times and I liked it a lot. We
first started considering looking at properity a couple of years ago and
were concerned about some heavey metal contanination that I had heard
about at Hartwell. The CEO responded to a email request for information
that not only included info on Hardwells history but all of GA and
pretty much everywhere that are active.

Capt Jack R.

"del cecchi" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
...


del cecchi wrote:


You guys get free use of resources the rest of the country
subsidizes,
the quality is great, the cost is very low. Of course you don't
complain. :-)

Explain again please why the taxpayers of Minnesota or Mississippi
should pay money so that you folks can have lake cabins for almost
free?

Because we pay taxes so that you can have flood control dams, locks, &
levees (along with FEMA insurance for when those things are
overwhelmed) for
almost free.

Got no levees in Minnesota. The dams and locks are not for flood
control but for navigation. Same with the wing dams, closing dams and
dredges ruining the backwaters. All for the barges going down the
mississippi. Take them all out. fine with me. I didn't ask for them
in the first place. They dredge the channel and dump the spoil on the
bank. Then we have to dodge the barges and watch the backwaters die.

I don't agree with fema making people who build in flood zones and on
the coastal beaches whole everytime their house washes away either.

I live on the beach in Florida. FEMA is not going to make me whole if a
hurricane washes away my house.
I hope that the very expensive PRIVATE (and difficult to obtain) insurance
policies I have will.