What Part of “NO THANK YOU” Does Ameren Not Understand?

Does anyone find it very offensive that when Ameren recently submitted their new “draft proposal” to the FERC, that referred to the flood of over 400 comments by LOZ Stakeholders (submitted in the darkest days of winter, over the Christmas holiday, in 30 short days) as misinformed?  Since you disagree with Ameren, you “misunderstood” what they are trying to do to HELP you.  In other words….you were not willing to drink the Cool-Aide.  You educated yourself and your neighbors, you stood with the Camden County Commission in their request for the 660 to preserve our economic engine at the lake, and you said “no thank you”.  In return you are referred to as a bunch of dummies who “don’t get it”.  Read below to see how Ameren relayed your overwhelming response to the FERC.

http://www.ameren.com/sites/aue/lakeoftheozarks/Pages/FERCProposal.aspx

In all, over 400 comments were filed on the Draft Amendment Application and are addressed in

the comment summary table included in Appendix F. Of these comments, approximately 23

percent supported the proposed boundary amendment. However, many of the commenter’s

misunderstood certain critical aspects of the draft amendment application. The following is a

summary of these larger misunderstandings that Ameren Missouri addressed in its response to

Did you get that?  In 423 comments to be exact, ONLY 23% were in agreement with Ameren’s proposal.  In the last SMP where comments were requested the balance appeared to be from resource agencies or the members of the SMP team, NOT the public.  The majority in that case were in favor of Ameren.  This time the real representation of the true stakeholders was represented.  You spoke LOUDLY!  Check out the comments here:

http://www.ameren.com/sites/aue/lakeoftheozarks/Documents/FERCPublicComments.pdf

Ameren’s response to the FERC based on the “misinformed” public:

• Misunderstanding that the current FERC boundary is established at elevation 660’ and

that the proposed boundary is somehow adding property to the project. The FERC

Osage Project Boundary Amendment Application Rev 1 – 1/31/12 19 boundary has never been set at elevation 660’ and the boundary amendment application proposes to remove 28,251 acres of land from FERC jurisdiction.

• Misunderstanding that the reason behind the amendment application is to allow for an

increase in fees to landowners with property remaining within the proposed boundary.

No part of this application proposes or contemplates increased permitting fees,

requirements for adjacent owners to lease Ameren Missouri shoreline lands for a fee, or

any changes to the way Ameren Missouri handles permits for docks, seawalls, ramps and

similar permitted facilities.

• Misunderstanding that the amendment application is an attempt by Ameren Missouri to

seize private property and / or alter existing parcel lines. Parcel lines and property rights

will not change under this boundary amendment proposal, which is simply designed to

remove excess lands not needed for project operation from FERC jurisdiction.

• Misunderstanding that the amendment application proposes boundary changes needed to

increase the water levels and the operating regime of the Osage Project. Ameren

Missouri is not proposing any changes to project operation, water levels, or the existing

guide curve at Lake of the Ozarks as part of this amendment application.

 Misunderstanding that the amendment application will result in unfettered public access

to private property within the FERC boundary. All Lake front properties have an

Ameren Missouri controlled strip of land adjacent to the lake that is project land and

accessible from the reservoir by the public. The proposed boundary amendment does not

change the currently defined access to project lands that the public and adjacent owners

have always enjoyed.

You should be applauded LOZ Stakeholders.  Now let us see how the FERC blows off the overwhelming majority.  It should be interesting.  What good is public comment if you are not going to consider it?  Keep up the good work.  Continue to talk to your neighbors and as the owners in your neighborhoods who have been gone all winter come back to the lake for the season, give them an earful.  Let them know exactly what is going on.  This fight is far from over.

Hey FERC and Ameren if you are reading this...just a little FYI...we understood with crystal clear clarity EXACTLY what your words meant. We have not been confused, and we are not stupid. We NEVER misunderstood. Ameren, do not speak for us.  You do not represent us.   We are completely capable of doing that for ourselves. We get it. We read your Appendix B. We read the FERC order. We have read the new boundary line amendment. We understand completely, always have.

Misinformation Is An Ugly Thing

A recent article in the Lake Expo here: http://lakeexpo.com/community/community_news/article_6c8d9538-4385-11e1-bb0d-0019bb2963f4.html

It is a press release from Ameren, and a rebuttal to all of the "misinformation" that is out there, this coming in the form of a letter from Jeff Green from Ameren talking about how misinformed lake area residents are. Sigh  .Below, you will see a few excerpts from Mr. Green’s letter, and my rebuttal that follows.Be educated lake area residents and the truth will set you free.Remember:Harry S. Truman once said “if you can’t convince them, confuse them.”Don’t be confused.Be educated.Check the facts for yourself and render your own decision.Take no one’s word for anything.Fight back with facts.

____________________________________________________________________________

Jeff Green says, * There are no locations at the Lake where Ameren Missouri's current project boundary occurs at 660. In all instances the boundary is 662 or higher

This information is disputable. Thousands of property owners have deeds that explicitly read that they own to the 660 contour elevation. Ameren says those deeds are wrong. We say prove it. The deeds of record show one thing, Ameren says another. Many people believe it is the burden of Ameren to prove in each instance how those deeds are wrong. We are the Show Me State. Show us Ameren. Show us.

Also, I would ask Mr. Green if he was selectively forgetting the Cedar Glenn Condominiums who have a project boundary at the 660 contour elevation that was adjusted by Ameren a few years ago? "In all instances" in my opinion would mean 100% of the time....did Mr. Green just forget about this one instance? Would this be an example of accidental "misinformation"? Does Ameren get a free pass?    When Ameren talks about "misinformation", could they be referring to their own based on this statement?   

The article outlining what happened at Cedar Glenn is found here:

http://www.lakebusjournal.com/issues/10012011/PDF/OCT_BNJ_2011_1.pdf

As well, in approximately 29% of lake front property at LOZ, Ameren ONLY has an easement to flood. In these instances, homeowners have deeds that describe their property boundaries to the middle of the channel of the lake. For Ameren to say that in NO case is there any project boundary lower than the 662 currently is “misinformation”. An easement to flood and a definitive project boundary spelled out by contour elevation is quite another.   With those who have granted Ameren ONLY an easement to flood there is no defined project boundary, thus being the case Mr. Green's statement is misleading to suggest that in no case is there any boundary less than the 660.  These owners own ALL THE WAY TO THE MIDDLE of the channel in many cases.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Leasing, Fees, Public Access, Property Ownership

Jeff Green says, * No part of our proposal involves leasing back, increasing fees or significantly changing the way we handle permits for docks, seawalls, ramps and similar permitted facilities. Unfortunately, Lake residents continue to receive misinformation on this point.
Key word is “significantly”. One word can change the meeting of everything. Note: What is significant to one may not be to another. This word should concern us all without knowing definitively what “significant” means. 

As far as the idea of “leasing”…well, just take a look at the words of Ameren’s Appendix B and the recent FERC Order, and wonder why we might think that leasing could be part of our future. Let Ameren and the FERC’s own words incriminate them.  To treat us like silly alarmists, and for Ameren to say "NO PART OF OUR PROPOSAL INVOLVES LEASING BACK" I implore you to carefully read their words.    The “misinformation” surely is a problem. I think lake area residents would agree with that, but Ameren may need to point the long finger of blame right back at themselves for this. Read their words and you decide.

B-13

Upon timely receipt of a completed registration packet and a completed application to acquire an interest in project lands (application discussed below) Ameren Missouri will review the registration and application materials and consider whether it is appropriate to convey an interest in project property (typically a permit or lease)

 B-14

When considering whether to transfer an interest in project property and when considering various interest that may be conveyed (including but not limited to permits or leasehold interests),

 10 Certain shoreline uses would be allowed in each shoreline use classification and AmerenUE would be able to convey certain interests in project lands and waters (through leases, rights-of-way, fee-title conveyances) or permit certain non-project uses without resource agency notification and/or Commission approval.

Such a conveyance may include among other things, but are not limited to, a conditional, non-transferable lease that would terminate upon the lessee’s vacancy of property, a mitigation plan for allowing project purposes to be impacted during the temporary use; and provision for requiring removal of the structure at such time. Any such document should include appropriate conditions to ensure the encroachment is managed and maintained in an appropriate manner.

 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jeff Green says, “No property rights are being taken away”. However, read very carefully exactly what Ameren vows in their Appendix B.    Apparently their interpretation of property rights and ours is quite different.  Understanding, In order to clear any trees or vegetation you now have to have “authorization” from Ameren.  Does this mean that you can not "landscape" without permission?   Do you interpret that as property rights taken away?  I mean, if you can't freely landscape your own yard (their project boundary) to their liking there will be repercussions.   If you do not follow Ameren’s vegetative cover policy your permit for your dock can be cancelled and legal action may follow. This is why Ameren wants to keep the “project boundary” to the 662. It affords them that strip of land to ensure that their vegetative cover policy is enforceable since your yard is their “project boundary”. Ameren is telling the truth if “take away” is not the same thing as “suspend or revoke” to them. Our property rights are not going to be taken away if we don’t follow their rules. Our property rights will just be “suspended or revoked” if we do not abide by the vegetative cover policy in their project boundary.

 “Any unauthorized clearing of trees or vegetation or failure to restore trees and/or vegetation as outlined above may result in the immediate cancellation of the individual’s permit(s), as well as, possible legal action to require the re vegetation of the affected area. Ameren Missouri may require residential and non-residential non-project use proposals to include vegetation protection and/or replacement plans where appropriate. Ameren Missouri reserves the right to suspend, revoke and/or limit other requested facilities (i.e., dock slips) for developments that violate the provisions of this policy.”

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

My neighbor said that Ameren officials told him that since his deck would fall within the 662 he would need a “permit”. So no leases needed in this instance, this is true. However, a permit will be required. Is this just a bad? See what FERC says about how Ameren will control and manage those “permitted” structures, and be your own judge on this one.

So, once again, as Jeff Green reminds us that “No property rights are being taken away”, read what could happen if you do not comply with the rules of the permit after you are subject to random audits that are part of the new plan.

 “Shoreline Management Plan Enforcement

56. AmerenUE is responsible for supervising and controlling the permitted uses and to monitor the use of, and ensure compliance with, any permits it has conveyed under its license. If any unauthorized activities or structures are identified along the lake shoreline, AmerenUE would hold the applicant responsible for correcting or removing the structure/activity, may revoke the permit, and/or charge enforcement fees. Further, if any non-project use/activity violates any conditions of AmerenUE’s project license or any other condition imposed by AmerenUE for the protection and enhancement of the project’s environmental, recreational, scenic, and historic values or if the terms of the permit are violated, AmerenUE would take any action necessary to correct the violation. AmerenUE would use GIS to help process permit applications and provide a visual record of all structures on the lake. AmerenUE proposes to conduct annual shoreline inspections and/or random permit audits to ensure compliance.”

 How is that “permit” looking to you now?  Apparently if you don't follow the rules your permit can and will be revoked and charge enforcement fees.  Ameren will take "any action necessary" to correct what they discern as a violation. What does that mean?  Scary.    Remember that Ameren also explicitly says this about the powers with which they have bestowed themselves:

 Since every possible situation cannot be anticipated, Ameren Missouri reserves the absolute right and discretion to make appropriate exceptions or modifications to Ameren Missouri’s requirements, to make special rulings, and impose additional requirements…..

Is any property owner safe with this unilateral power? Where are the checks and balances to ensure the property owners best interests are protected? The 660 would solve many problems quickly in the protection of our rights. Be educated. Know the truth. Misinformation is rampant. Just know where it is coming from.

Cynthia Davis's take on what is happening at LOZ

Used with permission.  It is good to know that there are good people running for office that clearly see what is going on here at our lake.  Learn more about Cynthia here:  http://votecynthia.com/

January 11, 2012 Issue No. 11 Does Anyone Have Property Rights?

How would you feel if the government told you that the land on which you built, on which you paid taxes and on which you have a clear legal title, is not really yours? How would you feel if you built a house, deck, garage or boat dock with a valid building permit, and you were told you could only have the use of it if you leased it back from the shoreline management company every year? How would you feel if environmentalists in Washington D.C. wanted to turn youpeople or their constitutional rights, it is up to the citizens to stand up for themselves and wage this battle to protect their property.

The Lake of the Ozarks is privately owned and should not be under national control or regulation. The only reasgn="justify" style="text-align: justify;"> The actions of FERC are based upon a new philosophy that the power of the national government trumps private ownership, despite the fact that some homeowners had deeds showing their property going to the middle of the lake. Some are proposing that the land owner can keep his structure if he pays to lease it back. To read more about this travesty, click here: Article

People should expect their legislators to protect them from government.

If you step back from the specifics and look at the big picture, several important themes emerge:

1.) Some legislators presume that every crisis calls for passing more laws. This is the wrong approach. We don't need more laws---we just need to live within the laws we already have. While some of the congressional delegation is filing bills, the right answer is for the non-elected bureaucrats to be restrained to a limited capacity that fits within our constitutional framework.

2.) The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States already says, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Check mate! You don't even have to be a lawyer to understand this. We should demand that the government go before a judge and jury made up of the peers---others who own land at the Lake of the Ozarks and have each case tried individually with the government having to pay all the costs before anyone can be denied any portion of his land.

3.) We must not allow unelected bureaucracies to make laws. Lawmaking functions belong strictly to elected bodies and should always to be reserved for the legislators alone. When congress passes laws to allow non-elected officials to make up their own rules, we have just opened the door for tyranny with no recourse.

Even if you don't live in the Lake of the Ozarks area, you need to know what is happening to our fellow citizens. This overreaching of big government is already infecting other communities in other states. This article shows that bigger government and more laws are the problem, not the solution. Article

The Lake of the Ozarks is referred to as one of the finest playgrounds in our state. You can be assured that as the Lt. Governor, I would fight this with the full weight of my office. We should not allow the national government to come in and confiscate our property or our prosperity from our innocent Missouri citizens anywhere! It is time to rise up and defend ourselves from this effort to hurt our people. When Washington DC starts to act like a big bully, we must all come to the rescue and demonstrate that we really are "The Show Me State"!

Your thoughts are important to me, so please let me know what you think. You can send me your comments by clicking here:

Mail to Cynthia

If you agree and want to be involved with our campaign to make Missouri a better state, please click here: Volunteer

Camden County Formally Asks For The 660

Camden County has gotten involved.  Even though our local Chambers of Commerces and the Bagnell Dam Board of Realtors have openly supported the 662 contour, our county officials have not.  They have been  drafting this document to protect property owners from what the FERC Order could do to LOZ.  At a recent town hall meeting Presiding Commissioner Kris Franken asked if the people supported this idea, and with the show of almost every hand in the room the audience showed their support for this measure of protection.  This document was drafted at the request of the people.   I have pulled out some high points.  Please refer to this site to read the entire document:

http://www.camdenmo.org/land-use/Coordinated%20Land%20Use%20Plan.pdf

The crux of the Camden County Coordinated Land Use Plan is this: 

"Through the CLUP, the county proposes establishing the project boundary at an elevation of 660 feet lakewide with an increase in the Project Boundary elevation to 662' around wetlands that have been previously identified by Ameren or for project recreational sites, public access sites, state parks and historic properties."

On the third day of November, 2011, the Camden County Commission passed a resolution invoking their right to coordination with state and federal agencies, departments, and commissions.  The authority to do so is found in federal statutes and regulations relating to management, oversight, and planning of use of land and natural resources.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Further, the definition of coordination shall be the common and ordinarily accepted definition of “coordination” as provided in standard dictionaries.  Common usage requires that Camden County, Missouri, and those units and agencies of federal and state government required by law to coordinate with the County be of equal status in the planning process and that plans proposed by such other units and agencies of federal and state government be consistent with those of the County.

______________________________________________________________________________


The Camden County Commission has the responsibility to protect the County’s tax base, protect the public health and safety, and to take actions necessary to serve its citizens.  This requires the county to plan for current and future land and resource uses and authorizes the County to exercise its powers related to the public health and safety which are customarily reserved to local government.

_____________________________________________________________________________

1.2         Purpose

The purpose of this CLUP is to establish the past precedent and future vision for land and resource use in Camden County, and more specifically for the Lake of the Ozarks.  This document will guide growth and future development around the Lake and throughout Camden County.  This coordinated plan will help guide public and private investments in a manner that improves the Lake Area while guaranteeing private property rights and preserving land values.  The CLUP is created to ensure public investments in physical infrastructure, as well as private investments in the community, and improve the quality of life.  By coordinating the investment of public funds in public infrastructure and services and managing growth and development, the coordinated plan helps guide responsible growth while preserving private property rights, the local tax base, and important natural and cultural resources.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Many of the encroachments on the current project boundary were the result of development which occurred prior to the FERC imposed requirement for shoreline management that began in the 1980’s.  As discussed in previous FERC orders on this subject, a considerable number of residences have been built on Ameren Missouri owned property within the project boundary, but have a written easement to do so.  The identification of these encroachments in the last couple of years coupled with over-reaching FERC regulation has created legal encumbrances that currently prevent the timely sale and transfer of these residences.  The proposed boundary amendment is a key component needed to remove these legal encumbrances and keep the FERC regulation authority below the 660’ contour in areas where adjacent private land ownership exists.

___________________________________________________________________________________

It should be further noted that while the original 1932 written easement has been honored to date, Ameren Missouri has only paid Missouri state property tax to the variable water’s edge, or 660’ contour, since the original adjacent fee conveyances.  Property taxes from the variable water’s edge, or 660’ contour, landward have been paid by the adjacent fee owners for many decades.  This means that multiple decades of property taxes were paid by successor owners prior to the relatively recent 2007 modification of Missouri RSMo 516.090, and prior to the creation of the FERC in 1977 which marks the beginning point in time for the FERC authority and the current trend towards increased regulation.  While Camden County recognizes that the FERC is a restructuring of the Federal Power Commission under the United State Department of Energy, it is the opinion of Camden County that unauthorized over-reaching regulation began at the inception of this reformation.  It has been upheld whenever challenged that private property rights are a State’s Rights issue.  Under Missouri land law, the continual payment of property taxes on a parcel for 10 or more consecutive years causes the subject land to ripen to fee ownership for the payee by default without court action (this premise has been upheld, with respect to utilities, by case law in The Empire District Electric Company vs. Gaar).  This is the case for all of the lands that have been identified by Camden County to have their lakeward property line adjusted to the 660’ contour with the exception of the 662’ contour boundary being employed in areas containing wetlands that have been previously identified.  Further, lease free access to the Lake of the Ozarks must be provided to all private landowners regardless of what the Project boundary definition is.  This process is simplified by maintaining current flooding rights and adjusting the Project boundary to reflect the property tax boundary, which brings the Project into compliance with Missouri land rights and land law.

__________________________________________________________________________________

To better understand Coordination go to:  www.americanstewards.us



If our county officials are willing to acknowledge the importance of the 660 then it is pretty apparent that there is a substanative reason we are asking for our property rights to be honored through the vehicle of adjusting the project boundary to the 660.  If you agree please get in touch with your representatives and let them know you support the Camden County and their request for the 660. 

The REAL Public Perception of the Ameren Workshops...

Understand what "permit" means.  Read old posts.  "Permit" is spelled out in the Appendix B.  It is not as simple as portrayed if Ameren really makes property owners submit to the "RULES" spelled out in their SMP Appendix B.  Just another example of why we need the 660.  Why should you have to permit something that is yours?  You should not.

The following are 2 emails that I received from people who went to the "workshops" held by Ameren. 

Email 1:

 I wanted to let you know that I went to the meeting last night. There was no forum for public input. You could only go around

the room and talk to various officials from Ameren. What we learned was that the 662 line on their maps is not official, only an estimate.

Also, they said if your house is below 662, they will draw the line around it, but if some other structure, like a deck, is below you can apply for a permit at the cost of $100.

Today, we are mailing a form which essentially asks Ameren to send someone out to see if we need a permit or if we are OK.

 Email #2:

Just thought I would share some thoughts and concerns I have after going to the Ameren Town hall/workshop meeting in Sunrise Beach, Jan 5.

The first thing I would like to say this is a horrible forum for meetings and should never be allowed as input meetings for citizens to voice their concerns and ask questions on issues. There will be no imput back to FERC from this meeting.

 Upon arriving at the meeting, my first observation was that most of the people there were elderly. After talking to a few couples I found out that they were all scared to death that they were going to loose their homes because FERC/Ameren were going to take them. After talking to the Ameren representatives they were happy they were not going to be moved out of their homes so they were willing to accept the 662 elevation. Ameren had also told the ones that might have a problem that they would be cut out and taken care of.

 To me this is the old Scare them bad then they will accept the least of the two evils.

I first talked to the County Assessor, and asked the question why 662 instead of 660? I also asked if he was going to re-evaluate my property since now I am considered lake front property and assessed as such. If Ameren takes the property up to the 662 elevation which could be nothing in some cases or could be who knows how many feet in other cases depending on how the property lays, I would in essence be a 2nd tier property owner and therefore should not be assessed at the higher rate lake front property is assessed. He told me no I would not be reassessed. I also wondered in this case scenario would Ameren's taxes be reassessed because they are now claiming this valuable lake front property. That ought to worth a considerable amount of money in taxes from Ameren.

To tie in with this I later asked an Ameren Representative why 662 instead of 660 and was told because FERC wanted that border around the lake for access for the public. They can't have it both ways to charge me for being lakefront but FERC/Ameren says it is open to the public to the 662 elevation however far that is up in my yard.

So my question to the County and State Governments is: Is Ameren going to pay taxes on the expensive Lake Front Property? I am a Realtor, our property values are based on Lake Front Foot. Lake Front property is worth considerably more then 2nd tier property, With this taking of property I have in essence lost the majority of value in my property. I am not going to pay taxes based on being lake front property when some body could come pitch a tent in my yard between my house and my dock! 660 elevation is the norm for the lake, I can take you to any property you can look at the high water mark on seawalls or erosion on the bank and know where 660 is.

 I then talked to an Ameren Representative. My first question to him was:

"Why 662 instead of 660"? His answer was "FERC would never approve 660 because they want a border around the lake for the public to be able to access the lake".

I then asked "is the 662 elevation a contour elevation?" his answer was "Yes".

I then asked "is it today's contour or the contour from1928?" He said "today's contour"

My question and observation about that is: over the last 84 years since the elevation was first set and the surveys were done for the original purchase of the property, the ground around the lake has eroded immensely. I would venture to say, with the exception of rock bluff property that the old contour lines could in most cases be way out in the lake today. I know from my own property that I have owned and lived on since 1978 that it has washed out 2 or 3 feet and in some places more then that from rain run off erosion, wave action and the raising and lowering of the lake.

Another problem I have with what is happening is the lack of accurate maps that Ameren is basing all of this on. The maps start out with the county plat maps showing the lots and property lines, these are just an overlay and are not accurate for anything. Then Ameren put their overlay on that and now this is their Bible, this is what is telling them who is in their boundary. I think Ameren should have to have the whole lake surveyed to the 1928 survey and 1928 elevations. With each and every new property line put on an accurate map with current elevations, before they tell somebody that their house or their lake property belongs to Ameren.

 Ameren is a "For Profit" company, their taking of Private Citizens property with the blessing/orders of FERC is un-constitutional. Think about it, get you a handful of dirt and rocks, or make a mound in the yard, pour water over it, what happens? It washes out, that is what has happened to the Lake in the last 84 years. What they are proposing is to take property up to a new contour of 662' that is a huge amount of property that they are trying to steal with the Governments blessing. It is a huge amount of private citizens wealth when their property in essence becomes 2nd tier property with access for the general public in front of it. We were a unique Lake, with Lake front ownership, property's have been bought and sold for the last 84 years on this premise and now it is in jeopardy of being taken away from us because of FERC and a "For Profit Co." Ameren Electric.

I protest the 662 elevation, the 660 elevation (normal high water mark) should be all that is included in the project boundary with the easement to flood that is understood by all and covered by FEMA flood plain maps.

The problems still come down to a FERC and Ameren Land Grab!!!!!



Well said. 

What the 662 looks like from my perspective...

My backyard...the place where my family enjoys our summer evenings is not mine according to Ameren.  It is theirs.  Even though I pay taxes on it;  I mow it; I swing my kids on the swingset that sits on it; my family plays bean bag toss on it;  the place we shoot our fireworks from on the 4th of July; it is not mine if the 662 is accepted.  If that is true then ALL of the yard that you are looking at is not mine anymore according to the new maps output by Ameren.  And, I am just one of thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of homeowners on LOZ where this statement will be true.  Therefore,  I am pretty sure that makes my property second tier.  I will be using their property reserved for "public access"...and I don't mean my invited guests.   From this point forward in order to enjoy what I have understood mine for the past 12 years (and for those in the decades before me) I have to submit to all of the new regulations that FERC and Ameren have for MY backyard in Appendix B of the SMP.  This picture shows you that the 662 is not a matter of just a couple of feet.  It is my whole entire back yard and probably yours, too.

If Ameren says it is theirs then they can pay taxes on it.  I will refuse. What will happen then?  Will I still be REQUIRED to pay taxes on property that is not mine?  How can they MAKE ME PAY TAXES ON SOMETHING THEY SAY THEY OWN FEE SIMPLE?    My property will not be worth that of a lake front property.  My value will be diminished if I do not own true lake front.  That is guaranteed.  Ameren will have to pay the taxes that make my property truly valuable if they say it is theirs, and the FERC says so, then they should have it all....including the tax bill for it.  What a mess the 662 will create. 

How do you think the owners of those mulit million dollar mansions in subdivisions like Porto Cima will feel when they realize that the true difference in the 660 and the 662 takes in their whole back yard?  How are they gonna like it when some of the LOZs finest  wander over from the Party Cove and decide to cove up and use the million dollar home owner's rip rap to build a camp fire pit?   And then~ GASP~ pitch a tent in their back yard since Ameren and the FERC are protecting that area for the "public use".   Heck, they may just stay and fish and swim and cook out all weekend on your property if they wish, and there is not going to be a darn thing you, the homeowner, can do about it if Ameren gets their way with the 662.  It should be fun to watch it all go down as the public gets a real education as to what the 662 really looks like up close and personal. It ain't gonna be pretty.  Guaranteed.

So as Ameren is saying that the public meetings were a huge success and an Ameren rep claims that this is what the majority of owners are asking for.....

“Although there are some people who want to see the boundary even lower, it was clear that the revision to 662 is well supported among most of the attendees.

Read the article here:  http://www.lakenewsonline.com/news/x1569737485/First-Ameren-workshop-a-success

Is that true?  Is that what the EDUCATED public really wants?  If not encourage your neighbors and friends to say so to Ameren and your elected officials. 

blunt@mailsenate.gov

202-224-5721

 

Diane.franklin@house.mo.gov

(joyce Bush is her assistant)

573-751-1119

Wanda Brown, State Rep:

wandabrown2010@gmail.com

or

dan.kleinsorge@house.mo.gov

660-287-5886

Vicky Hartzler, US rep:

donnaspickert@mail.house.gov

573-634-4884

Buckle Up Lake Front Home Owners If Selling Is In Your Future. We Could Be In For A Wild Ride

If you have a lake front home with an existing dock permit and you want to sell in the future, I encourage you to read this post and understand where the LOZ is headed as a result of the SMP. All of the elements that occur within the SMP at Smith Mountain Lake in Virginia are found in ours as well.   In earlier posts we have discussed the vegetative cover policy.  Well, here is how Ameren and the FERC have enabled themselves with the power to make sure we abide by this new rule.  If you want to sell, you better know your permit could be held hostage until you comply with the new and improved SMP.

 Appendix B to SMP/ Requirements for Ameren Permits/Construction LOZ

Taken From Appendix B To The SMP/ Page B-34:

8.2 Transfer of Ownership

If the ownership of the property, dock, or other permitted facilities changes, Ameren Missouri must be notified. If the property is transferred to a new owner, the existing permits are required to be transferred to the new owner.

Why,  you ask?  This is a great question.  “MUST BE NOTIFIED” is a huge stop sign.   To this veteran realtor it means BEFORE I convey your home, I must let Ameren know or potentially I put myself at risk of a lawsuit if something manifests with your dock permit AFTER you close.  You ask what could possibly go wrong?  I mean, you only have to let them know….right?  Maybe, but let’s take a lesson out of the play book from Smith Mountain Lake in Virginia to potentially help us predict the future here.  If you ever plan to sell…you had better read this post!  This is coming from a veteran realtor at LOZ of 17 years.  I strongly suggest you take this one very seriously.

Taken directly from:

http://www.curb-ferc-aep.com/abuses-of-power

Example #1 of how things could go terribly wrong:

When better isn't good enough

Prior to SMP regulations Jim and Mary receive a permit from Appalachian Power to build a dock depicted with a hand drawn preliminary sketch. Jim applies and receives a building permit from the County. During construction the dock design is changed. The final as-built dock is smaller and its setback from adjacent property is greater (less intrusive) than the preliminary sketch. The dock is completed after the SMP becomes effective. The completed dock is inspected and receives a certificate of occupancy from the County building official. [IAW State Code § 15.2-2307 – this dock is vested and can continue to exist as it was built, even if regulations change in the future.]

Three years after completion Jim and Mary decide to sell and ask Appalachian Power to inspect their dock so its permit can be assigned to the new buyer. Appalachian Power’s inspection reveals that the as-built dock is different from the hand drawn sketch. Appalachian Power directs Jim and Mary to either modify their dock to match the hand sketch or apply for a new permit for the as-built configuration. In either case, Appalachian Power informs them that they must also submit a landscape plan for their shoreline and agree to plant several native plants as punishment (mitigation) for this offense. Appalachian Power inspectors ensure them there will be no problem if they cooperate.

Jim and Mary decide to make application for the as-built dock, submit a landscape plan and agree to implement that plan. Appalachian Power sits on the new application refusing to approve and instead asks for additional and costly modifications to the as-built dock. Jim and Mary continue to discuss with Appalachian Power, but never get a straight or timely answer from the SMP staff, and new issues are raised at every meeting; the discussions extend over two years; Jim and Mary lose their buyer; real estate market values fall; and Jim and Mary eventually ask Appalachian Power for a final decision. During this same period, Appalachian Power allowed the neighboring property to expand a non-conforming dock in violation of the SMP.

Appalachian Power demands they modify their as-built dock; submit a new revised and more costly landscape plan; and remove a paved pathway to the dock. Jim and Mary write to the FERC asking it to review the matter and further explain how Appalachian Power has been inconsistent, slow to respond and did not follow SMP rules. FERC responds they think Appalachian Power has not been inconsistent and furthermore they agree with Appalachian Power’s final decision.

Jim and Mary ask the FERC if this is a final decision as they want the FERC staff to “rehear” (revisit) this issue. FERC denies the rehearing and informs Jim and Mary they can request a rehearing of the denial to re-hear. Jim and Mary requested the re-re-hearing and have moved the argument to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile three years have elapsed since Appalachian Power’s inspection.

Synopsis

Jim and Mary’s as-built dock is superior in all regards to the preliminary hand drawn sketch: (1) smaller in area, (2) shorter in length, (3) narrower in width; and (4) better in placement. Appalachian Power’s position – yes, but it doesn’t match the original hand drawn sketch.

ynopsis

sExample #2:

Only if you want to sell

Dick and Jane own a lot with 375 feet of waterfront. Dick and Jane receive a permit to build a dock from Appalachian Power. They apply for and receive a building permit from the County. Because of the shoreline length, Dick and Jane have the right to build a dock with three slips and up to 3,000 square feet. They choose to build a smaller dock with only one slip and less than 1,000 square feet in total coverage. They complete the dock and receive a CO from their County building inspector.

Dick and Jane decide they want to sell and ask Appalachian Power to inspect their dock so they can transfer the permit. Appalachian Power determines their as-built dock is slightly larger and of a slightly different configuration than what was permitted, but still far smaller than the 3,000 square feet maximum.

Appalachian Power insists they modify their dock to be more conforming with the permit (even thought their dock conforms with the SMP) and directs they plant native trees and scrubs along their entire 375 feet of waterfront, as punishment and at great personal expense. Dick and Jane protest and Appalachian Power eventually agrees that only 100’ of the waterfront needs to be planted with native trees and scrubs. Dick and Jane make the necessary modifications to get the dock permit transferred; they sell and leave the area. After the sale is complete they protest that their transfer permit was held hostage. They remain bitter and tell friends and neighbors up North not to consider SML because of Appalachian Power’s unfair and unreasonable actions.

Synopsis:

Dick and Jane’s as-built dock met all requirements of the shoreline management plan. But rather than allow them to submit as-built plans and transfer the dock to the new owners, Appalachian Power instead held up the sale until Dick and Jane planted native vegetation along 100 feet of their shoreline as punishment.

SCARY THING IS THAT THERE ARE EVEN MORE EXAMPLES! GO HERE TO READ ABOUT THEM:  http://www.curb-ferc-aep.com/abuses-of-power

It is so important to realize that you must  be educated by the truth and KNOW what Ameren’s own words in their Appendix B really say and mean.   Ameren is pretty loose with their allegations about all of the “misinformation” out there.  Do they mean their own?   I am pretty sure we know what this means: (Taken from page B-7 of Appendix B in Ameren’s own words)

Since every possible situation cannot be anticipated, Ameren Missouri reserves the absolute right and discretion to make appropriate exceptions or modifications to Ameren Missouri’s requirements, to make special rulings, and impose additional requirements…..

Laughable. Read their words and be scared. These guys have given themselves the latitude to change the rules when and IF they see fit according to the above paragraph.   They predict our future if you understand what you are reading.  Pass this post on to anyone you might think would be interested in selling their lake front home in the future.  This could be just one more scary part of the new SMP that “lots of people asked for”…… according to Ameren. 

MAKE A DIFFERENCE!  TAKE THE TIME TO SEND A MESSAGE TO THE FERC AND DEMAND THE 660 CONTOUR ELEVATION FOR OUR LAKE!

*****GO TO :  https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NXR9RWC  AND RECORD YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE JANUARY 15 ON WHY WE MUST GO TO THE 660 ELEVATION TO ELIMINATE THIS NIGHTMARE FROM BEING OUR REALITY IF WE DO NOT SPEAK UP!