noharleyyet
Well-known member
Ah yes, I see it after reading it again, thanks.
Californians build house in GNP. FCD demands halt and removal.
- Thread starter Sytes
- Start date
shoots-straight
Well-known member
You really think those pictures are a close comparison to what we are discussing? Not even close in my estimation. I have no idea what went on there, but do know that large rocks have to be pulled up in the right direction to dislodge them, and certainly that building site looks very rocky and might hold very large solid boulders that would require the right pull. Have you operated a large excavator such as the one in the picture on the low boy? Drive that one around the home in question to dig and back fill then let me know if you get wet.
trackerbacker
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2023
- Messages
- 464
Platte River canoe livery wins its lawsuit against the National Park Service
The owners of a canoe livery that has operated on the Platte River in northern Michigan since the early 1970s have staved off an effort by the federal government to make them pay for the privilege.
A case that mimic closely gnp. Agreements in place with the long ....too offensive of a word for here....of the law reneging of agreements.
Heck, maybe I'll connect amblers with the orrs.
Nick87
Well-known member
The idea that someone had to put equipment in the river to do any of the dig or the backfill is...well I'm not even sure what to say to that. As far as runoff maybe but I think it'd be minimal. Nothing to do with the argument at hand just an observation.
Last edited:
OntarioHunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2020
- Messages
- 5,980
It was my understanding when I worked for the NPS that the inholdings in Glacier could survive to the end of lifetime of owners in possession back in the 70s and that no significant improvements could be made to existing structures and NO new construction. At the end of owner's life, the NPS acquired the property by right of eminent domain. The terms were settled in courts a long time ago. I seem to recall one place on the other end of the lake that burned and couldn't be rebuilt. I'd like to know how the contractor got the materials and equipment through the gate. Some heads are gonna fall. Very stupid. Arrogant!
Loophole allows construction of private home along McDonald Creek
A private landowner has built a home along the shore of Lower McDonald Creek in Glacier National Park and Flathead County planning officials say there’s nothing they can do about it.
Dan O
Well-known member
Has there been an investigation on the septic system to ensure no seepage or nitrates will get into the ground water or river? Just asking for a friend.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,527
It makes sense.Loophole allows construction of private home along McDonald Creek
A private landowner has built a home along the shore of Lower McDonald Creek in Glacier National Park and Flathead County planning officials say there’s nothing they can do about it.dailyinterlake.com
View attachment 319356
The fema flood maps are what flood insurance is based on - if something is in the right level flood plane it is uninsurable.
Not much point in doing the extensive effort to determine risk of building in an area when its practically impossible to build there.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Not withstanding the findings of the Flathead County Planning and Zoning Dept and the county floodplain administration in concert with FEMA floodplain designation authority ... yet no court ruling has been seen as a result of the Flathead Conservation District (FCD) lawsuit and demands with regard to their authority. FCD actually comes under state Dept of Natural Resources and Conservation. FCD is not a county government department and unfortunately it seems (at least in Gallatin County) a huge disconnect between the floodplain administrator and the conservation district. So the FCD may yet put a halt to this streamside development. Please inform if something more recent contradicts the FCD stance described above.Loophole allows construction of private home along McDonald Creek
A private landowner has built a home along the shore of Lower McDonald Creek in Glacier National Park and Flathead County planning officials say there’s nothing they can do about it.
View attachment 319356
Straight Arrow keeps yelling at the clouds, "Montana floodplains are inextricably connected to the Treasure State's treasured rivers and streams!!! State and county authorities ... don't you get it!!!"
Terrible example on the floodplain of the West Gallatin River is the Gallatin Floodplain Administrator's decision to allow digging out and expanding an "existing stock water pond" (which really never existed) and mucking up a natural spring creek on an island proposed for a sixteen acre, 58 unit "glampground" mostly in the floodplain. The Gallatin Conservation District imposed its authority and demanded a 310 permit application, then granted a 310 permit, but only to fill in the pond (pit) and restore the stream back to its original state. The money spent on lawyers, excavation and mucking up of the floodplain, and now on restoration is beyond my calculation ability. The developer is already under water (pun intended) and yet the glampground is a long way from turning a dime! It's still being opposed locally on several fronts.
Last edited:
Ongoing...
dailyinterlake.com
San Diego couple asks for ruling in Glacier Park home removal case
The California couple who built a private home along the banks of McDonald Creek inside Glacier National Park have petitioned the Flathead County Conservation District for a declaratory ruling — another step in the regulatory process that could see the matter eventually go before a district...
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Excerpt from article: The board determined the stream bank had been excavated in violation of the 310 law.Ongoing...
San Diego couple asks for ruling in Glacier Park home removal case
The California couple who built a private home along the banks of McDonald Creek inside Glacier National Park have petitioned the Flathead County Conservation District for a declaratory ruling — another step in the regulatory process that could see the matter eventually go before a district...
In addition to ordering the removal of the home, the board also required the Amblers to obtain a 310 permit — the permit that’s necessary to do any sort of work near a stream in Montana — to tear the home down.
The Amblers never applied, or received, a free 310 permit when they began construction. They previously claimed they didn’t know they needed one.
The Conservation District board has history, experience, professional expertize, legal standing, and strong county and state authority, so I predict that structure will eventually be removed.
My basis for that prediction relates to the debacle of the glampground proposed for development in the floodplain of the Gallatin River, where the landowner dug a large pond and mucked up a natural spring creek, saying he didn't know he needed a 310 permit as he thought the natural creek was a man-made ditch. The issue was resolved through the process described above. Having lived close to the spring creek and being neighbors for decades with the former owners of the property, I testified at the hearing in person. My testimony was included in the arguments before the district judge and then again before the Montana Supreme Court. Judgement and result was the landowner / developer was issued a 310 permit ... but soley for the purpose of filling in the pond and restoring the creek and area to its original natural condition. As of this week, the pond is again floodplain pasture land and the restoration of the natural spring creek has begun. The sad thing is that the landowner has fought this for several years now and has spent thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars in excavation and subsequent restoration, design, engineering, permit fees (DEQ), legal fees, and who-knows-what. What a debacle! As is the Amblers' bumble cluster!
The point is that when the conservation district and the state DNRC seriously consider such an issue, concur on a mandate for remediation, and then pursue enforcement through the hearing and judicial system, their guns are loaded and their legal authority is well substantiated. Amblers' argument that they didn't know they needed a 310 permit is absurdly weak!
trackerbacker
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2023
- Messages
- 464
Ooopsies.
....Some in FCD should be careful, both employees and it's contractors....
Seems some hadn't 'tread carefully'...
But stones and glass houses and 240 pieces of paper burn fast.
Plus, survey/CE'd data tends to help.
Hahahah
....Some in FCD should be careful, both employees and it's contractors....
Seems some hadn't 'tread carefully'...
But stones and glass houses and 240 pieces of paper burn fast.
Plus, survey/CE'd data tends to help.
Hahahah
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
"ooopsies ... FCD should be careful ..." ???
To what are you referring? Is there more current information, legal action, or court decision?
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Yes, could you expound...
trackerbacker
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2023
- Messages
- 464
Surely.
Fcd did a big no no as a .gov entity. No one had caught it, but discovery is what it is. Financial motives. Whether that's acted on or utilized as motivation to drop the issue will remain to be seen.
To boot, most of the points address, objectively, do lend themselves to amblers points (communications, survey data points, 3rd parties etc).
And neither the deputy AG or the parks concur with FCD point of view nor will make a statement.
It's similar in nature to a case out in Wisconsin or Michigan. Long standing 'lodge' doing canoe floats through a national etc etc long standing contract etc etc lodge won
It reads far closer to 'i don't like Californians/he slept with my then wife now ex' than 310 permit or natural worldly untouched Virginated montana waterways torn to shreds by oil dumping mercury mining Californians.
As some are bent out of shape that I don't live on HT and feel the need to whine in PM, I'll be back later. I'm hoping to see some resolution in the next while, but could be wrong, and have other hobbies thatll distract me as is.
If that's permissable
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Nonsense!!!
Flathead Conservation District (FCD) administers the Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act and is the one and only "gov entity" with oversight and authority regarding development in and around rivers, streams and springs, as well as the authority in issuing permits (310) for such development. FCD is soley "in charge" of McDonald Creek. Neither the "deputy AG" nor the "parks" have any such authority. If a decision by FCD is appealed, it goes either to an objective third party mediator or to district court. If further appealed, it is elevated to the Montana Supreme Court.
The news articles and factual information published so far clearly describe a case of disagreement between the Amblers (developer/owner) and the FCD ... a case yet to be decided.
It is irresponsible to assert such hogwash as shown above, opinion which seems to reflect some sort of personal connection to the issue, but is uninformed.
OntarioHunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2020
- Messages
- 5,980
There's a career waiting for you as a late night born again TV evangelist.
Mudranger1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,894
If you don't understand his post your thesaurus is not as great as it used to be ......side note. I still have no idea what he said in his response
trackerbacker
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2023
- Messages
- 464
Gosh darn, sure seems odd of fcd to go to the AG and parks to issue a statement in favor of 'being in charge' to no avail.
Guess when you've seen the survey data, high water mark compared to structures, through GIS/gps coordinates...
The hogwash, is one of us has the information, and one doesn't.
The true hogwash, as I've stated from the beginning, is how many here, and they have been quoted or screenshot, agree/demand/support the .gov in forcibly removing the structure, private rights be damned. That's suckstarting the long dick of the law of I've ever seen it.
But hey man. That's like, just my opinion, man.
How's the murse development going?There's a career waiting for you as a late night born again TV evangelist.
Last edited:
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Could you please elucidate?
