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.