Recent Legislation Passed on Preservation of Wetlands

H

Hunter8319

· #2 · 9 d ago

That’s a shame. Wetlands have a lot of great functions.

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 1

Vonfoust

· #3 · 9 d ago

sophie415 said:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/25/politics/supreme-court-wetlands-authority-epa/index.html

Here's the kind of crap our 'Supreme Court' has decided is beneficial for all of us... Wow..what a legacy. !!

Please explain.

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 1

C

CMP70306

· #4 · 9 d ago

sophie415 said:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/25/politics/supreme-court-wetlands-authority-epa/index.html

Here's the kind of crap our 'Supreme Court' has decided is beneficial for all of us... Wow..what a legacy. !!

It’s an important distinction and one that needed made. The original law was designed to protect what most people would consider wetlands, the marshy grass areas along streams, creeks, rivers, lakes, bays and oceans.

However that’s not how the EPA saw it, they have overstepped their authority and routinely consider simply any area that could hold water for even part of the year as wetlands. If you read the case that was voted on the plaintiff were not allowed to build a house on the property they purchased because it could disturb a ditch that the EPA decreed was a navigable waterway and threatened to fine the couple $40,000 per day if they continued.

This isn’t ruining wetlands, this is taking an out of control government agency out at the knees and should have been done years ago.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency

On May 25. 2023, the Court announced its decision: A 9-0 decision rebuking EPA’s claim to limitless regulatory authority and determining that the Sacketts’ land is not subject to the Clean Water Act. While all Justices agreed on the judgment, they had different theories on what exactly does fall...

pacificlegal.org

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 5

B

Bowsnbucks38

· #5 · 8 d ago

CMP70306 said:
However that’s not how the EPA saw it, they have overstepped their authority and routinely consider simply any area that could hold water for even part of the year as wetlands. If you read the case that was voted on the plaintiff were not allowed to build a house on the property they purchased because it could disturb a ditch that the EPA decreed was a navigable waterway and threatened to fine the couple $40,000 per day if they continued.

This isn’t ruining wetlands, this is taking an out of control government agency out at the knees and should have been done years ago.

Just a note here -
There's a low-lying area in Lycoming County that I used to trap for muskrats and coons. Most times it has water in it, depending on rainfall, and other times it's dried up. It borders a small creek / trickle, so given a time of ample rainfall - it IS a wetland - and it drains further downstream. I know of a number of ditches that fall under that same description.

Now - what happens when pollution in any form - chemical, siltation, pesticide runoff, dumped motor oil (common in rural areas, and sadly towns too) etc., happens to find its way to neighboring properties or water supplies??? Those affected immediately complain that their wells are crapped-up, or something's making their kids sick when they play outside, or they have water & silt flowing onto their property that never did before excavation locally on another property. Those affected folks typically complain that "they" (gov. agency) aren't on top of things and policing when they should. Those kinds of folks have a legitimate gripe.

We all want to do whatever WE want on our properties - but when someone else messes up our immediate locality - we want "the government" (in some form of it) - to rush to our rescue. Seldom do people consider that what they do on THEIR property can affect many others locally. IMO - that's how each case should be handled .... locally.... on a case-by-case basis, done by qualified engineers - and NOT by a blanket Supreme Court ruling. Bragging about "taking out an out-of-control agency at the knees" is short-sighted when numbers of us may just NEED that agency to protect our own wells / waterways / wetlands. (Scientists worldwide agree for a number of years now that wetlands are nature's filters for water supplies. So much so that some "filled-in" wetlands are being restored because they're much CHEAPER and more effective than man-made water purification systems on a large scale.)

See less See more

Reply

Save

Like

C

CMP70306

· #6 · 8 d ago

Bowsnbucks38 said:
Just a note here -
There's a low-lying area in Lycoming County that I used to trap for muskrats and coons. Most times it has water in it, depending on rainfall, and other times it's dried up. It borders a small creek / trickle, so given a time of ample rainfall - it IS a wetland - and it drains further downstream. I know of a number of ditches that fall under that same description.

Now - what happens when pollution in any form - chemical, siltation, pesticide runoff, dumped motor oil (common in rural areas, and sadly towns too) etc., happens to find its way to neighboring properties or water supplies??? Those affected immediately complain that their wells are crapped-up, or something's making their kids sick when they play outside, or they have water & silt flowing onto their property that never did before excavation locally on another property. Those affected folks typically complain that "they" (gov. agency) aren't on top of things and policing when they should. Those kinds of folks have a legitimate gripe.

We all want to do whatever WE want on our properties - but when someone else messes up our immediate locality - we want "the government" (in some form of it) - to rush to our rescue. Seldom do people consider that what they do on THEIR property can affect many others locally. IMO - that's how each case should be handled .... locally.... on a case-by-case basis, done by qualified engineers - and NOT by a blanket Supreme Court ruling. Bragging about "taking out an out-of-control agency at the knees" is short-sighted when numbers of us may just NEED that agency to protect our own wells / waterways / wetlands. (Scientists worldwide agree for a number of years now that wetlands are nature's filters for water supplies. So much so that some "filled-in" wetlands are being restored because they're much CHEAPER and more effective than man-made water purification systems on a large scale.)

In your example that would fall into the wetlands act as it directly connects to the waterway even though it is dry part of the year. The issue is the EPA has spent decades overstepping their authority on this issue and going after people for wetlands violations that were completely out of their scope of authority. If they had followed the law as designed they wouldn’t have needed to get reprimanded by the Supreme Court in a 9-0 ruling. I would rather them put their effort into rebuilding rather than threatening $40,000 fines over a ditch surrounded by houses and roads.

We’ve had dealings with the EPA on a dredging project in NJ, one of the lagoon towns wanted to use the mud that had been washed into the lagoons to rebuild the wetlands in front that had been eroding away. They were actively trying to rebuild wetlands using the mud that was washed out of them and the EPA drug it out for over a decade demanding multiple soil samples of the same mud at $10,000 a pop then taking years to get back any kind of answer.

Then when their permit was about to expire and no more money could be gained they denied their request to rebuild the wetlands stating that thin layer deposition of the mud to rebuild the wetlands was harmful for the environment and made them pay to truck all of the material many miles away to a land fill instead of pumping it several hundred yards to be spread over the marsh to shore it up after decades of erosion. This greatly increased the cost and did nothing to help restore the wetlands that they are tasked with protecting.

Meanwhile the Army core had to dredge the Intercostal waterway a couple miles away in the middle of the bay and suddenly the EPA is saying thin layer deposition and dumping the mud back onto the wetlands is the best thing for restoring wetlands and they proceed to do it with more than 10 times the material that was moved at the shore community and some of which were just loaded into giant piles in the marsh.

Government overreach is a huge issue by the unelected bureaucrats at these agencies, just look at the 10 to 40 million people that lawfully bought braced pistols after the ATF said they were legal per the law. The ATF has now changed a rule and anyone who does not comply by destroying their personal property will become a felon on June 1st.

See less See more

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 3

CHECKSTER

· #7 · 8 d ago

I’ll be waiting to see what DU and Delta Waterfowl have to say regarding this.
Can’t imagine they would support this decision.

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 1

H

Hunter8319

· #8 · 8 d ago

CMP70306 said:
EPA drug it out for over a decade demanding multiple soil samples of the same mud at $10,000 a pop then taking years to get back any kind of answer.

$10,000 per soil sample? Soil scientist must be rich in NJ.

How do you feel about PA's Vernal pools and isolated wetlands.?

Reply

Save

Like

limbhnger10

· #9 · 8 d ago

The Clean Water Act is an actual can of

for any landowner that has ANY form of "water" on their property.
Ya...it's typical of the lawmakers NEVER read any of it. But now farmers and residential landowners are becoming the new target of the EPA and agencies under this administration.....all part of the master plan.
Ya, the cwa helped greatly the past 50 years.....but the evironwackos are looking for more

...the issue is these agencies cannot make the laws......and most have no clue of any details of actual laws...it's the interpretation of laws that gets them "off the hook"..sorta....and since it is the government...most can't challenge the overreach due to the money involved to fight the EPA, Army Core of Engineers, USDA and the USFW...and this aforementioned case....solidifies that the EPA and other agencies continue to overstep their boundaries and were put in their place. I see nothing wrong with that happening....had NOTHING to do with ducks.

...I don't think most here understand the overreach of agencies like the EPA...USDA...USFW, etc., once they get involved. The cwa is good.....but it is now being taken many steps too far in regulation.

the 9-0 USSC decision confirms the agencies were out of line......

...oh...and the ATF can't make laws either.

See less See more

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 2

B

Bowsnbucks38

· #10 · 7 d ago

CMP70306 said:
I would rather them put their effort into rebuilding rather than threatening $40,000 fines over a ditch surrounded by houses and roads.

I'm for rebuilding wetlands too.
As Administrations & Congresses change, and the "crisis-of-the-days" change - political will / common sense changes with the variables. I'd like to see science and engineering rule the day on long-lasting problems ....... NOT the whims of ANY politician looking to score votes. None of us win with one side saying black, and the other side says white. Their (politicians') ax to grind is about keeping their jobs - not the long-term interest of our environment. AND they have no scientific background / knowledge.

Reply

Save

Like

B

Bowsnbucks38

· #11 · 7 d ago

limbhnger10 said:
...the issue is these agencies cannot make the laws......and most have no clue of any details of actual laws...it's the interpretation of laws that gets them "off the hook"..sorta....and since it is the government...most can't challenge the overreach due to the money involved to fight the EPA, Army Core of Engineers, USDA and the USFW...and this aforementioned case....solidifies that the EPA and other agencies continue to overstep their boundaries and were put in their place. I see nothing wrong with that happening....had NOTHING to do with ducks.

If all these agencies are a pile of crap - who do YOU - or anyone else run to when there's a flood problem (no dikes / failing dikes), food that's unsafe / contaminated with bacteria, pesticides, ground water (wells) contaminated, people getting sick / dying, etc. Has "trusting" individuals, businesses and corporations been a good path to follow?????

GREED is as old as dirt, so in order to POLICE those who don't want to pay for doing things the correct way - safely - we're going to need government agencies to watch over what effects us on a daily basis. Lots of people bit** about the USDA's rules ........... until folks start getting sick with listeria, salmonella, hepatitis, etc. - from contaminated meat, poultry, fish, eggs, and fresh produce. Folks with contaminated well water want to know why the H### the EPA let it happen. Maybe slashing the EPA budget and firing lots of field personnel isn't a good idea.

Everyone hates the agencies ........... until we NEED them.

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 2

Bramble

· #12 · 7 d ago

I dealt with dep for 40 years and most of the time their agents were reasonable and would give you viable options to solve a problem but at times you felt that the agent was trying create a problem that didn't exist and usually it was someone that didn't have very much experience in actual field work. I always like it when they sent someone who was around a while because if there was a problem they would usually give a solution, not just say you can't do that.

Reply

Save

Like

limbhnger10

· #13 · 6 d ago

Bowsnbucks38 said:
If all these agencies are a pile of crap - who do YOU - or anyone else run to when there's a flood problem (no dikes / failing dikes), food that's unsafe / contaminated with bacteria, pesticides, ground water (wells) contaminated, people getting sick / dying, etc. Has "trusting" individuals, businesses and corporations been a good path to follow?????

GREED is as old as dirt, so in order to POLICE those who don't want to pay for doing things the correct way - safely - we're going to need government agencies to watch over what effects us on a daily basis. Lots of people bit** about the USDA's rules ........... until folks start getting sick with listeria, salmonella, hepatitis, etc. - from contaminated meat, poultry, fish, eggs, and fresh produce. Folks with contaminated well water want to know why the H### the EPA let it happen. Maybe slashing the EPA budget and firing lots of field personnel isn't a good idea.

Everyone hates the agencies ........... until we NEED them.

Ya OK....The topic is the Federal government trying to take control over PRIVATE PROPERTY for the governmens own interests...and how the government OVERSTEPPING/OVERSTEPS its authority.

Not a single person said anything about slashing ANY agencies employees...

...read the recent USSC ruling from the east coast about the topic of government trying to control land use...
...read the WHOLE " USA vs Robert Brace"
Read all the articles from the past 30+ years....and maybe you'll understand what we're talking about.

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 2

B

Bowsnbucks38

· #14 · 5 d ago

limbhnger10 said:
Not a single person said anything about slashing ANY agencies employees...

That's been the goal of many people when THEIR property has an effect on neighboring or "downstream" properties. Bad environmental effects don't stop at private property lines. What happens on someone's "private property" can affect lots of other people and THEIR properties too. Would you like it if I filled-in a ditch on MY property, or bulldozed a bunch of ground, and it caused YOUR property to be flooded, or dried up a small water flow you used to water your garden??

When anyone starts championing "taking out an agency at the knees" - the ramifications (while sounding tough on "big government) - sooner or later affect situations where lots more folks are affected negatively BECAUSE of "taking out an agency." If you read my above post, I said each case should be decided locally - by qualified engineers & judges - and NOT done with a broad-brush decision by the Supreme Court. Each situation is different. Wide-ranging decisions aren't the best fit.

There are plenty of politicians who want to (and have) weakened federal agencies by SLASHING their budgets, laying off / firing the employees of said agencies. Acting "big and tough" on some NECESSARY agencies can have very negative effects when real environmental crises occur. When cities / towns / townships have water contamination worries, or air polluted by toxic emissions from a known / or unknown source - those "hated agencies" are the first ones that have people crying to them for help. (And those agencies often get bit##ed at for allowing the disaster to happen in the first place). Slashing budgets and firing staff doesn't help then ...... does it??

See less See more

Reply

Save

Like

limbhnger10

· #15 · 5 d ago (Edited)

Bowsnbucks38 said:
That's been the goal of many people when THEIR property has an effect on neighboring or "downstream" properties. Bad environmental effects don't stop at private property lines. What happens on someone's "private property" can affect lots of other people and THEIR properties too. Would you like it if I filled-in a ditch on MY property, or bulldozed a bunch of ground, and it caused YOUR property to be flooded, or dried up a small water flow you used to water your garden??

When anyone starts championing "taking out an agency at the knees" - the ramifications (while sounding tough on "big government) - sooner or later affect situations where lots more folks are affected negatively BECAUSE of "taking out an agency." If you read my above post, I said each case should be decided locally - by qualified engineers & judges - and NOT done with a broad-brush decision by the Supreme Court. Each situation is different. Wide-ranging decisions aren't the best fit.

There are plenty of politicians who want to (and have) weakened federal agencies by SLASHING their budgets, laying off / firing the employees of said agencies. Acting "big and tough" on some NECESSARY agencies can have very negative effects when real environmental crises occur. When cities / towns / townships have water contamination worries, or air polluted by toxic emissions from a known / or unknown source - those "hated agencies" are the first ones that have people crying to them for help. (And those agencies often get bit##ed at for allowing the disaster to happen in the first place). Slashing budgets and firing staff doesn't help then ...... does it??

GOOD LORD
.... you on meth?......read slowly.....NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SLASHING JOBS....

...and you go on some rant

....I take it you work for/or have direct relations with one of these "agancies"

...the case made it to the US SC BECAUSE the lesser courts...lawyers.."agents"... WERE NOT ABLE TO decipher or could not understand the law... the "agencies" blatantly overstepped their boundaries and got their pee-pee slapped.. and were put in their place ..it is THAT SIMPLE.

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 2

wildcat18

· #16 · 4 d ago

Bowsnbucks38 said:
...each case should be decided locally - by qualified engineers & judges - and NOT done with a broad-brush...

You are right this is the way it should be done.

The epa did not want to do it that way. The epa painted everything they could with their broad brush and said it was law. The court simply said the epa has no authority to do that.

Reply

Save

Like

Reactions: 2

Top Contributors this Month