Lake of the Ozarks shoreline controversy, who are the owners? (Union: rental, condos)

[SW Missouri Dave]

Lake of the Ozarks, Ameren Missouri, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, homes, lakefront structures, Shoreline Management Plan; FERC wants to ban lakefront structures - ky3.com (http://www.ky3.com/news/ky3-thousands-of-lakefront-structures-in-danger-at-lake-of-the-ozarks-20110831,0,4939797.story - broken link)

Thousands of lakefront structures in danger at Lake of the Ozarks

Why is it that it seems every time you read "federal agency" in the first paragraph, you know its going to be bad news.

[brushrunner]

Seems a Little Late to me,they should have regulated it years ago.Thats what I like about Truman Lake.

brushrunner

[cyrano]

God didn't create the Lake of the Ozarks. (warning-- here comes da law. It's as basic as I can make it.) The precedessor of the FERC did when they dammed the Osage River. There's nothing simple about property rights in an area where a river was turned into a "lake," then that "lake" (I'm sorry, that's not a lake, but that's for another time). It's the Fed's dam, the Feds have rights in the water dammed up behind it and, apparently by statute, have some right of control over the use of the shoreline-- at least, a veto power over how Ameren allows property "owners" to use that shoreline. (Actually, if I'm reading the documents correctly, Ameren owns the actual land on the shoreline, and probably conveyed long-term rental interests to the "owners") My quick reading of the documents that take a couple of clicks to access indicate that FERC is unhappy with structures along the shoreline, basically saying that there's too many of them, and they interfere with what they say is the overriding principle of land use there- the public's right of enjoyment of the lake. You can boil the questions down to something as simple as this-- does the public have any rights in the Lake? If so, what are they? If they're sold, who should get the proceeds?

The only documents I've seen are Ameren's, and considering Ameren's track record in public relations, it's likely that they're coloring everything to suit themselves. They undoubtedly make good coin conveying leaseholds in the shoreline, and it's easy to set up the Feds as a bogeyman. It's entirely possible that the Feds put forward a proposal that was more than they actually would be willing to take, in order to get Ameren to do more-- two places where they could do more, in my opinion as a very occasional lake user, would be to increase public boat ramps and do something about the entities who still use the Lake as their septic tank.

The smart thing to do is to balance everyone's interests-- Ameren, the property "owners," the public. Candidly, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that. But it's a little more complex than "government bad."

Brushrunner-- what do you like about Truman Lake with regard to government regulation-- that they've been managing it since the 1950s (http://www.nwk.usace.army.mil/ht/TheLake.cfm - broken link), since before it was even a lake? (I like Truman Lake too-- more fun to boat on, even if it has fewer trashy, near-nekkid young women).

[brushrunner]

Originally Posted by cyrano

God didn't create the Lake of the Ozarks. (warning-- here comes da law. It's as basic as I can make it.) The precedessor of the FERC did when they dammed the Osage River. There's nothing simple about property rights in an area where a river was turned into a "lake," then that "lake" (I'm sorry, that's not a lake, but that's for another time). It's the Fed's dam, the Feds have rights in the water dammed up behind it and, apparently by statute, have some right of control over the use of the shoreline-- at least, a veto power over how Ameren allows property "owners" to use that shoreline. (Actually, if I'm reading the documents correctly, Ameren owns the actual land on the shoreline, and probably conveyed long-term rental interests to the "owners") My quick reading of the documents that take a couple of clicks to access indicate that FERC is unhappy with structures along the shoreline, basically saying that there's too many of them, and they interfere with what they say is the overriding principle of land use there- the public's right of enjoyment of the lake. You can boil the questions down to something as simple as this-- does the public have any rights in the Lake? If so, what are they? If they're sold, who should get the proceeds?

The only documents I've seen are Ameren's, and considering Ameren's track record in public relations, it's likely that they're coloring everything to suit themselves. They undoubtedly make good coin conveying leaseholds in the shoreline, and it's easy to set up the Feds as a bogeyman. It's entirely possible that the Feds put forward a proposal that was more than they actually would be willing to take, in order to get Ameren to do more-- two places where they could do more, in my opinion as a very occasional lake user, would be to increase public boat ramps and do something about the entities who still use the Lake as their septic tank.

The smart thing to do is to balance everyone's interests-- Ameren, the property "owners," the public. Candidly, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that. But it's a little more complex than "government bad."

Brushrunner-- what do you like about Truman Lake with regard to government regulation-- that they've been managing it since the 1950s (http://www.nwk.usace.army.mil/ht/TheLake.cfm - broken link), since before it was even a lake? (I like Truman Lake too-- more fun to boat on, even if it has fewer trashy, near-nekkid young women).

Basically its COE and you can't build right on the Lake.My place sets next to COE Land but I'm still a few hundred yards from the Lake.

brushrunner

[cyrano]

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity.

[Missouri Geographer]

The Union Electric Light and Power Company (now Ameren UE) built the dam in tne late 20s. They own and opeate the dam, not the federal government - although they di have oversight of its operation.

[lifelongMOgal]

I thought "squatters' rights" laws applied after a structure had been in place x 10 years without any challenge. Is this incorrect? Therefore, if the federal government wants to claim encroachment it would have to do so within 10 years of the building of the structures claimed to be "encroaching" on its land/waterway. If the federal government doesn't "due dilligence" in a timely manner I don't see where they can come in decades later and try to claim encroachment. However, this could seriously muddy the titles of any property owner attempting to sell in an already severely down market.

To me this smacks of Agenda 21 and Cass Sunstien. I also wonder if the Dept. of the Interior was sucessful in its attempts at the largest land grab in this country's history via regulation. It has been trying for over a year to place new definitions on its control of waterways to include everything, not just traditionally navagatible rivers and lakes (read backyard farm pond and rain water running off your roof).

[SW Missouri Dave]

More info

Lakefront homes at risk - Camdenton, MO - Serving Missouri's Lake of the Ozarks region including Osage Beach, Camdenton, Lake Ozark, Eldon and Sunrise Beach

"The homes and other structures such as boat houses, gazebos and boardwalks either fall within the boundaries of Ameren Missouri's ownership of the shoreline or on easements for the public utility company."

[jade orchid]

It makes me sad to see what has been done to the shore lines , all you see now are Condos . no scenery as there once was .

[cyrano]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

I thought "squatters' rights" laws applied after a structure had been in place x 10 years without any challenge. Is this incorrect? Therefore, if the federal government wants to claim encroachment it would have to do so within 10 years of the building of the structures claimed to be "encroaching" on its land/waterway. If the federal government doesn't "due dilligence" in a timely manner I don't see where they can come in decades later and try to claim encroachment. However, this could seriously muddy the titles of any property owner attempting to sell in an already severely down market.

To me this smacks of Agenda 21 and Cass Sunstien. I also wonder if the Dept. of the Interior was sucessful in its attempts at the largest land grab in this country's history via regulation. It has been trying for over a year to place new definitions on its control of waterways to include everything, not just traditionally navagatible rivers and lakes (read backyard farm pond and rain water running off your roof).

The general rule is, you can't adversely possess (adverse possession is the legal term for squatter's rights) against the government.