ANNOUNCEMENTS
We continue strong efforts to gain support and obtain federal funding for updates to the Corps of Engineers Lake Texoma 1976 Environmental Impact Statement, 1978 Master Plan and1996 Shoreline Management Plan and to address other issues and improvements indicated on this web site.
  • Texas and Oklahoma federal, state and local representatives and officials.
  • Lake Texoma area businesses and organizations.
  • Boaters, fishermen, hunters, other recreational and wildlife enthusiasts and their organizations.
  • Be involved, you can make a difference!

HOT ISSUES
Go button

Oklahoma Lake Texoma State Park (Oklahoma Land Conveyance) EIS Scoping Report Summary, See Appendices for project descriptions and public comments.
Go button Eagles at Lake Texoma
Witness the evolution of a cove under development.
Supplement to Lake Texoma Environmental Impact Statement is Required
Why We Are Losing Prime Boating, Fishing, Hunting and Outdoor Recreation Areas?
What Can We Do About the Issues?
Who to Write to?
Little Mineral EIS (Denison Land Conveyance) Scoping Report Summary, See Appendix D for proposed development drawings and Public Scoping Comments in Appendix F.

Eminent Domain

INHOFE INTRODUCES BILL COMBATING

EMINENT DOMAIN PROPERTY SEIZURE

September 12, 2006

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla) has introduced legislation to defend Americans’ right to own and enjoy private property without the threat of federally funded eminent domain seizures. Inhofe’s ‘Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2006’ (S. 3873) proposes that in any state receiving federal funds for economic development where a locality within that state exercises its power of eminent domain for economic development purposes, then that state shall be ineligible for federal economic development funds for two fiscal years.

Senator Inhofe released the following statement upon introducing the bill:

“I believe in the right to own private property, and I believe in the right to enjoy it and not be harassed, especially by the government.

“There are three issues addressed by the ‘Private Property Protection Act of 2006’ that I will soon introduce. First, this legislation aims to protect the right to own and enjoy private property, one of our government’s core purposes. Second, the bill directly confronts the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, which allows local governments to take private property for economic reasons. Finally, the bill forces the Court to reign in its incessant judicial activism, returning to the true intent of the Fifth Amendment. In sum, the bill limits government intervention into the private market.

“However, my bill does not attempt to encroach on a state’s right to conduct business and levy taxes; it simply makes clear that the national government will not fund these blatant abuses.”

Inhofe’s legislation mirrors the eminent domain legislation (H.R. 4128) introduced by Reps. Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), Conyers (D-Mich) and Waters (D-Calif) which passed the House of Representatives (376-38) last November.