Montana relocation: resentment toward newcomers (Roundup, Reserve: unemployment, dangerous, moving)

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by jimj

They do the same thing here in the Flathead with some twists. Many houses here are on well and septic. If your septic fails (and this includes having it pumped) and there's a sewer line within a certain distance you MUST come off septic and hook up. This in total costs runs about $25k including plant investment fees.
While I understand the need to reduce/eliminate septic tanks I think if a city is forcing you to do so they should pay to have it done since they now have a customer (hostage) for the life of the property.

If you get annexed into a city and/OR they lay water lines within a certain distance from your house you MUST hook to city water as well but there's some argument that you "might" be able to keep your well for non-household use as in lawn watering as long as they deem it not a hazard to their water sources. I must say that around here the city water is way nastier than anything my well or most private wells have ever put out.

I don't know how this isn't extortion. I suppose if you can't pay they just tack it onto your property tax. Here I believe they put a lien on your property and you pay it off at your leisure, with 29% interest. (BTW if your power is cut off for any reason, that counts as "well failed, must hook up to water system".)

And I'll bet in the Flathead there's a thriving market for sump pumps capable of cleaning out a septic, at least good enough to get it working again with no one the wiser. (Old method was to flood the tank, siphon it out, rinse and repeat until it was cleared out.)

[Stephan_K]

Originally Posted by Reziac

-- 500 fish introduced at a cost of $500 MILLION dollars. That's right, those fish cost about a million dollars apiece. And they aren't a threatened species; they're ordinary Pacific salmon, such as are common in the Columbia River drainage.

I better get over there and catch one of those million dollar fishes before their all gone . One would make one hell of a wall hanger... even at fry size ! The story behind it would be... wait for it........ PRICELESS !

[jimj]

Originally Posted by Reziac

I don't know how this isn't extortion. I suppose if you can't pay they just tack it onto your property tax. Here I believe they put a lien on your property and you pay it off at your leisure, with 29% interest. (BTW if your power is cut off for any reason, that counts as "well failed, must hook up to water system".)

And I'll bet in the Flathead there's a thriving market for sump pumps capable of cleaning out a septic, at least good enough to get it working again with no one the wiser. (Old method was to flood the tank, siphon it out, rinse and repeat until it was cleared out.)

Well actually what happens is most of the septic companies don't report that they pumped the tank and since there's no one really to check compliance the only way you get caught is if someone rats you off.
As for extortion, yep it certainly is but since the city is holding the gun I guess it's legal...

[chillybreeze]

I'm really glad I found this site as my family and I are planing to relocate from Georgia to Montana. We are trying to buy a small local business and want the locals to feel welcome and hope they will make us feel welcome also. If anyone has advice on how to stay "neighborly" while making minor changes to an existing business, all would be welcome.We look forward to a slower paced life and better environment for our children while enjoying what Montana has to offer.

[janab]

I agree in part to what you last said, but also still know the situation and plight of the N Cal farmer. I was raised just north of Sacramento in the fertile heartland of central valley. As growth spreads the fertile lands go towards suburbs and forcing our food to be imported. They just had to build the Sac airport where they did instead of using the barren waste off to the east towards Roseville. Still So Cal carries a lot more weight with money and population whens it comes to voting. N Cal tried parting ways but all the votes are south. Once again, population and growth

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by janab

I agree in part to what you last said, but also still know the situation and plight of the N Cal farmer. I was raised just north of Sacramento in the fertile heartland of central valley. As growth spreads the fertile lands go towards suburbs and forcing our food to be imported. They just had to build the Sac airport where they did instead of using the barren waste off to the east towards Roseville. Still So Cal carries a lot more weight with money and population whens it comes to voting. N Cal tried parting ways but all the votes are south. Once again, population and growth

Well, in SoCal we wish NorCal (meaning the Bay area) would go away, so it works both ways Have you seen that proposal to split CA lengthwise, so the coast from L.A. to S.F. would be one state, and the whole ag part would be another state? Makes sense to me!! Put all the yuppies in one state, and all the farmers in the other. At least that way maybe SOME farm interests would be preserved... and people forget, agriculture is THE most important industry, because without the ability to produce our own food, we're at the mercy of the rest of the world.

As to the new Sacto. airport -- they do stupid crap like that everywhere. About 25 years ago someone figured out that about HALF of the best cropland had already been built over -- and once that happens it's gone forever. There is absolutely no foresight in development anymore -- they build wherever it's going to be the biggest tax base, and if we end up importing our food and begging China for credit, oh well! Stupid beyond belief.

[Fodderman]

Originally Posted by GLS

Just an aside, but it is a sad day when you save to buy your own property, take a risk on drilling, pay for the well, and the government tells you what you can't use your own water for. However, the way things are changing, I guess expressing my opinion is just "watering" upwind.

It gets worse in some areas. A recent ruling in Colorado forbids the practice of collecting and using rainwater on your own property. Here's a quote:

All she wants is the rain water that lands on her roof. She lives with her husband and two children in a solar-powered home in rural San Miguel County. Committed to promoting sustainability, Kris Holstrom grows organic produce year-round, most of which is sold to local restaurants and farmers markets. On a mesa at 9,000 feet elevation, however, water other than precipitation is hard to come by. So Kris did what thousands of farmers before her have done: She applied for a water right. Except instead of seeking to divert water from a stream, she sought to collect rain that fell upon the roof of her house and greenhouse. To her surprise, the state engineer opposed her application, arguing that other water users already had locked up the right to use the rain. The Colorado Water Court agreed, and Kris was denied the right to store a few barrels of rainwater. If she persisted with rain harvesting, she would be subject to fines of up to $500 per day.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by Fodderman

It gets worse in some areas. A recent ruling in Colorado forbids the practice of collecting and using rainwater on your own property.

That's stretching the concept a bit, methinks...

A detailed article on the cited ruling:
Colorado Central Magazine May 2008 Page 14 (http://www.cozine.com/archive/cc2008/01710141.html - broken link)
I find these quotes most cogent:

In dry years, 100% of the annual precipitation is lost to evaporation and transpiration by vegetation (evapotranspiration). In wet years, a maximum of 15% of the precipitation returns to the stream system. On average, just 3% of annual precipitation ever returns to the stream.

Despite this hydrological reality, Colorado law requires anyone wanting to use rainwater catchment to send to the stream an amount of water equivalent to 100% of all precipitation harvested -- in effect, a gift to prior appropriators paid for by folks trying to live more sustainably.

[and]

Romer's bill also authorizes ten pilot projects statewide where new housing developments may collect rainwater from rooftops and other impermeable surfaces. While the bill pays lip service to water conservation, promoting real estate development in areas facing water supply challenges may be its primary goal.

Two opinion pieces with contrary viewpoints:
Kris Holstrom Breaks The Law With The Fancifully Painted 55-Gallon Buckets Underneath The Gutters Of Her Farmhouse « One Man’s Thoughts
Boulder Dude: Water, water everywhere…

[janab]

Actually the "Bay Area" is just that, the Bay Area, and Northern California is NORTH of there
Real N Cal is very fast loosing ground to development, yeppers. Take a look just outside Sac at the Natomis district. That area north was prime agricultural land and now they are fighting to save the district to flooding and getting $$ to rebuild and redirect the levee. Farmers who have had farmland for hundred years are being forced from their homes and land. Powers to be are so stupid! Yes, if it wasn't for foreign food, how would we feed ourselves? OMG!! That's why when hubby retired from 43 years of railroading I requested we move from Graeagle to ID. We've loved it since. It was like being home all along.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by janab

Actually the "Bay Area" is just that, the Bay Area, and Northern California is NORTH of there
Real N Cal is very fast loosing ground to development, yeppers. Take a look just outside Sac at the Natomis district. That area north was prime agricultural land and now they are fighting to save the district to flooding and getting $$ to rebuild and redirect the levee. Farmers who have had farmland for hundred years are being forced from their homes and land. Powers to be are so stupid! Yes, if it wasn't for foreign food, how would we feed ourselves? OMG!! That's why when hubby retired from 43 years of railroading I requested we move from Graeagle to ID. We've loved it since. It was like being home all along.

Yeah, I've got relatives in Grass Valley and Auburn and Pleasanton -- it's changed there so much since the disease of urban blight began devastating cropland that it's unrecognizable. In 1971 most of the area was still quiet farmland. By 1981 it was solid blight from Auburn to Sacto and Sacto to Fresno. I was through there again in 1999 and 2007, and the blight continues to spread. But in 1999 the remaining farms still looked healthy. In 2007, what farmland wasn't yet paved over mostly lay fallow and dead. The number of failed and dying farms was shocking. Farms that looked productive were relatively few. At least a couple stockyards along the freeway sat empty.

Hey folks, when the farmers are all gone, what do you plan to eat? We've exported all our industry already; what's left to buy foreign food with, even if it's fit to eat? (Which some has proven not.) I guess we could sell a couple of those states we're not using. What would California be worth to China??