View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9303
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is hardly a wetland. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9303
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
or this better photo. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Bard, how about a vertical aerial view of the property where we might be able to better discern the lay of the land. Getting closer to the truth seems to be the right course here. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17772 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bard--you are so silly you can't see the fill. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4303
|
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm no expert...I would call in a consultant to double check if I were designing a building on that site. It does look suspect to me. Tall grasses to the side would be of concern. It is usually not a big deal to have someone from the army corp come out and look at a site. Just did it a couple weeks for a friend of mine considering the purchase of a property.
Sometimes you can get the army corp to look at a site and let you know it is not a wetlands and save the consulting fee. Up front, it is not as onerous as it would appear. The problem is when one proceeds without a permit. It is harder to prove there was not a wetland once you cover it up.
FWIW, these issues are hardly new. Blaming this on Obama is a stretch. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
coboardhead wrote: | Blaming this on Obama is a stretch. |
Here's how it works:
No wind... Obama's fault.
Too much wind... Obama's fault.
Just the right wind... Bush set the stage for this weather pattern back when he was planning Bin Laden's demise and GM's recovery. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9303
|
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Sacketts' property lies just north of Priest Lake, but is separated from the lake by several lots containing permanent structures. In preparation for building a vacation house there, the Sacketts filled about half an acre of their lot with dirt and rock.
Several months later, they received from the EPA a compliance order directing them immediately to restore a wetland on the property under an EPA work plan because Priest Lake is a "navigable water" of the United States within the meaning of the Act.
The EPA decided that by causing fill material to enter waters of the United States, the Sacketts have engaged, and are continuing to engage, in the "discharge of pollutants" from a point source, which is prohibited by the Clean Water Act without a permit.
MORE GOVT BULLSHIT? From the 2nd photo it appears that the govt roadway is below the elevation of the lot. Curious. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4303
|
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quite possible the road goes thru a wetlands. I have designed a number of bridges and walkways in wetlands. We just go through the permit process to do it. Frankly, I am often suprised at what is sometimes permitted.
No way can any of us determine if this was a wetlands by the information shown.
The real issue, IMO, is that the appeal process can be overwhelming. I agree with the Supreme Court decision. It does not mean these folks did not knowingly, or unknowingly, violate a regulation. And, what we know of this example is not enough to say this regulation is bogus. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The wetlands designation was almost certainly on their title report when they purchased. It often results in the property being the last to sell in a built out area because it costs more to build.
The problem was their inability to have reasonable recourse. The Court came through for the small guy hooray.
Looking through the early posts I note that other posters mostly objected to blaming this Bush era BS on "Obamas EPA." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
keycocker wrote: |
Looking through the early posts I note that other posters mostly objected to blaming this Bush era BS on "Obamas EPA." |
Those are the ones who could NOT care less about the property owners, EPA, neighborhood, property, environment, wetlands, wildlife or anything else logical.
No, those are the ones who leap to any opportunity to slam the President, no matter how contrived, illogical, or downright dishonest the claims. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|