Apparently, you can just buy land with wetlands and fill it in, consequences be damned.

Scotus narrowed wetland regulation under the clean water act ruling in favor of landowners that wanted to build on land they purchased that had wetlands on it. Their reasoning was that the clean water act extends only to those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are waters of the United States.

To that, I say l, is complete and utter horse shit and they are acting like they are isolated systems. They are not. The whole point of wetland regulation is because none of them are truly isolated. You fill in one wetland, the water doesn't just magically disappear. The water has to go somewhere. Therefore even isolated wetlands can dramatically effect other properties with flooding, etc, if they are filled in. It's why properties with extensive wetlands are always for sale, they are worthless and unusable unless there's a big study or plan in place for what to do with the water. Here it sounds like because these property owners had the bad sense to buy property that can't be built on, they are rewarding them with the right to build. Consequences be damned. Unbelievable. I have to believe this opens up a lot of land to build on and a lot of new flooding problems.

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

As someone who has attempted to negotiate a similar issue, I like that they're attempting to put a definition around "wetland." As someone who's concerned about the environment, I'm not sure I LIKE the new definition, but at least we're getting some clarity and not just leaving it up to the whim of local bureaucrats.

The local buracrats (of the US EPA) have a whole library of regulations based on science and public comments they must follow, so your dismissive characterization is a bit over the top.

The court just ruled that reality doesn't matter.  Since it was 9 - 0 there must be something in the law that supports that.

Okay, ignore the second part, the vote was 5 - 4. Even one of the religious fascists on the court was reality based on this one.

Trapper Gus wrote:The local buracrats (of the US EPA) have a whole library of regulations based on science and public comments they must follow, so your dismissive characterization is a bit over the top.

The court just ruled that reality doesn't matter.  Since it was 9 - 0 there must be something in the law that supports that.

9-0?  it was 5-4, unless you are referring to something else. 9 justices thought the land owners in this case should be allowed but the 4 did not want to narrow the law to do it.

I hope this doesn't open tons of land to development.  The last thing we need is more wetland destruction and if you are going to, it needs to be mitigated

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:The local buracrats (of the US EPA) have a whole library of regulations based on science and public comments they must follow, so your dismissive characterization is a bit over the top.

The court just ruled that reality doesn't matter.  Since it was 9 - 0 there must be something in the law that supports that.

9-0?  it was 5-4, unless you are referring to something else.

I hope this doesn't open tons of land to development.  The last thing we need is more wetland destruction and if you are going to, it needs to be motigated

Only heard part of the news, there must have been a different ruling that was 9 - 0. Heard that it was 5 - 4 and modified my post while you were posting.

Having just heard that the ruling was 9 - 0 for the homeowners and the 5 - 4 ruling was on a broader issue.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:Scotus narrowed wetland regulation under the clean water act ruling in favor of landowners that wanted to build on land they purchased that had wetlands on it. Their reasoning was that the clean water act extends only to those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are waters of the United States.

To that, I say l, is complete and utter horse shit and they are acting like they are isolated systems. They are not. The whole point of wetland regulation is because none of them are truly isolated. You fill in one wetland, the water doesn't just magically disappear. The water has to go somewhere. Therefore even isolated wetlands can dramatically effect other properties with flooding, etc, if they are filled in. It's why properties with extensive wetlands are always for sale, they are worthless and unusable unless there's a big study or plan in place for what to do with the water. Here it sounds like because these property owners had the bad sense to buy property that can't be built on, they are rewarding them with the right to build. Consequences be damned. Unbelievable. I have to believe this opens up a lot of land to build on and a lot of new flooding problems.

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

On the other hand it's nice to know the Supreme Court will be ruling that student loan debt forgiveness is constitutional. The "its not my fault you took out a bad student loan." Excuse has been obliterated

Trapper Gus wrote:The local buracrats (of the US EPA) have a whole library of regulations based on science and public comments they must follow, so your dismissive characterization is a bit over the top.

The court just ruled that reality doesn't matter.  Since it was 9 - 0 there must be something in the law that supports that.

Okay, ignore the second part, the vote was 5 - 4. Even one of the religious fascists on the court was reality based on this one.

Yeah, I've talked to the people with the "whole library of regulations based on science and public comments" and I can tell you, it's not nearly as cut and dried as you'd like to think.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:The local buracrats (of the US EPA) have a whole library of regulations based on science and public comments they must follow, so your dismissive characterization is a bit over the top.

The court just ruled that reality doesn't matter.  Since it was 9 - 0 there must be something in the law that supports that.

Okay, ignore the second part, the vote was 5 - 4. Even one of the religious fascists on the court was reality based on this one.

Yeah, I've talked to the people with the "whole library of regulations based on science and public comments" and I can tell you, it's not nearly as cut and dried as you'd like to think.

Oh sure, so hypothetically it is now okay if a processing business spills millions of gallons of a highly poisonous liquid into a wetlands on their property which then travels through the water into the drinking water for millions of people.  

Sure, but the Clean Water Act wasn't violated according to 5 relgious crazy people on the Supreme Court say so

edit - Have to say TM that these unsupported claims about some aspect of something while gaslighting other posters on their thoughts is becoming a "go to" for you in these decussions.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Yeah, I've talked to the people with the "whole library of regulations based on science and public comments" and I can tell you, it's not nearly as cut and dried as you'd like to think.

Oh sure, so hypothetically it is now okay if a processing business spills millions of gallons of a highly poisonous liquid into a wetlands on their property which then travels through the water into the drinking water for millions of people.  

Sure, but the Clean Water Act wasn't violated according to 5 relgious crazy people on the Supreme Court say so

edit - Have to say TM that these unsupported claims about some aspect of something while gaslighting other posters on their thoughts is becoming a "go to" for you in these decussions.

It's OK though! There's no obvious or visual connection to waters of the United States. There's no possible way those deadly chemicals can impact anyone else off the property

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Yeah, I've talked to the people with the "whole library of regulations based on science and public comments" and I can tell you, it's not nearly as cut and dried as you'd like to think.

Oh sure, so hypothetically it is now okay if a processing business spills millions of gallons of a highly poisonous liquid into a wetlands on their property which then travels through the water into the drinking water for millions of people.  

Sure, but the Clean Water Act wasn't violated according to 5 relgious crazy people on the Supreme Court say so

edit - Have to say TM that these unsupported claims about some aspect of something while gaslighting other posters on their thoughts is becoming a "go to" for you in these decussions.

Sorry you're all bothered about this. But I can tell you - I bought property in Michigan this past fall, and working with EGLE has been anything but straight forward. You can claim whatever you want, but I'm relaying to you my first hand experience.

As I said, I've mixed emotions on this one. I'm not sure this is a good ruling, but it will probably make my life a thousand times easier.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Oh sure, so hypothetically it is now okay if a processing business spills millions of gallons of a highly poisonous liquid into a wetlands on their property which then travels through the water into the drinking water for millions of people.  

Sure, but the Clean Water Act wasn't violated according to 5 relgious crazy people on the Supreme Court say so

edit - Have to say TM that these unsupported claims about some aspect of something while gaslighting other posters on their thoughts is becoming a "go to" for you in these decussions.

Sorry you're all bothered about this. But I can tell you - I bought property in Michigan this past fall, and working with EGLE has been anything but straight forward. You can claim whatever you want, but I'm relaying to you my first hand experience.

As I said, I've mixed emotions on this one. I'm not sure this is a good ruling, but it will probably make my life a thousand times easier.

It’s a shit ruling as per usual with the 5 cultists on the court. Wonder how much Uncle Thomas will make in grift from this ruling.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Oh sure, so hypothetically it is now okay if a processing business spills millions of gallons of a highly poisonous liquid into a wetlands on their property which then travels through the water into the drinking water for millions of people.  

Sure, but the Clean Water Act wasn't violated according to 5 relgious crazy people on the Supreme Court say so

edit - Have to say TM that these unsupported claims about some aspect of something while gaslighting other posters on their thoughts is becoming a "go to" for you in these decussions.

Sorry you're all bothered about this. But I can tell you - I bought property in Michigan this past fall, and working with EGLE has been anything but straight forward. You can claim whatever you want, but I'm relaying to you my first hand experience.

As I said, I've mixed emotions on this one. I'm not sure this is a good ruling, but it will probably make my life a thousand times easier.

Why don't you explain a little more about what you were trying to do before randomly trashing egle with few detail?

Maybe then we can feel sorry for your experiences

sεяεηιτλ wrote:
Maybe then we can feel sorry for your experiences

It’s all property rights until some asshole or asshole corporation fills in wetlands.

When the runoff floods your property its not ther problem.

TravelinMan wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:
Maybe then we can feel sorry for your experiences

Well then, I guess we have to assume that you made bad decisions by spending too much on bad land, and now are blaming the government because they won't let you do what you want to do, that which you would never be allowed to do on the land, i.e. the thing that made the land bad (stream flowing through? Wetland? Lake?).

The moral of the story, don't buy bad land for more than it's worth.

GRR Spartan wrote:It’s all property rights until some asshole or asshole corporation fills in wetlands.

When the runoff floods your property its not ther problem.

That's what I'm worried about. That is exactly the reason for proper management of wet lands. I should not be harmed with flooding or water problems because someone else bought cheap land (cheap, for a reason) and then didn't want to follow the law and build on it anyways.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Well then, I guess we have to assume that you made bad decisions by spending too much on bad land, and now are blaming the government because they won't let you do what you want to do, that which you would never be allowed to do on the land, i.e. the thing that made the land bad (stream flowing through? Wetland? Lake?).

The moral of the story, don't buy bad land for more than it's worth.

Add that to the list of bad assumptions you have about me. It's no where close to the truth, but I'm sure it will make a good story for you to reference occasionally.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Oh sure, so hypothetically it is now okay if a processing business spills millions of gallons of a highly poisonous liquid into a wetlands on their property which then travels through the water into the drinking water for millions of people.  

Sure, but the Clean Water Act wasn't violated according to 5 relgious crazy people on the Supreme Court say so

edit - Have to say TM that these unsupported claims about some aspect of something while gaslighting other posters on their thoughts is becoming a "go to" for you in these decussions.

Sorry you're all bothered about this. But I can tell you - I bought property in Michigan this past fall, and working with EGLE has been anything but straight forward. You can claim whatever you want, but I'm relaying to you my first hand experience.

As I said, I've mixed emotions on this one. I'm not sure this is a good ruling, but it will probably make my life a thousand times easier.

Details.

What have you had to do?

What have the road blocks been?

TravelinMan wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Well then, I guess we have to assume that you made bad decisions by spending too much on bad land, and now are blaming the government because they won't let you do what you want to do, that which you would never be allowed to do on the land, i.e. the thing that made the land bad (stream flowing through? Wetland? Lake?).

The moral of the story, don't buy bad land for more than it's worth.

Add that to the list of bad assumptions you have about me. It's no where close to the truth, but I'm sure it will make a good story for you to reference occasionally.

Tit for tat here dude.

You make similar accusations about others.

If you had included details, and please do, it sounds like an interesting perspective, you might have avoided this.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:It’s all property rights until some asshole or asshole corporation fills in wetlands.

When the runoff floods your property its not ther problem.

That's what I'm worried about. That is exactly the reason for proper management of wet lands. I should not be harmed with flooding or water problems because someone else bought cheap land (cheap, for a reason) and then didn't want to follow the law and build on it anyways.

I'm more concerned with possible pollution than improper land usage. That sort of filling of wetlands should be controlled by the county drain commission.

TravelinMan wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Well then, I guess we have to assume that you made bad decisions by spending too much on bad land, and now are blaming the government because they won't let you do what you want to do, that which you would never be allowed to do on the land, i.e. the thing that made the land bad (stream flowing through? Wetland? Lake?).

The moral of the story, don't buy bad land for more than it's worth.

Add that to the list of bad assumptions you have about me. It's no where close to the truth, but I'm sure it will make a good story for you to reference occasionally.

There's an easy solution for you: don't troll ir trash without details. Explain your situation. EZPZ

I'm all for supporting logical reforms to how government operates to get rid of unjust circumstances like you apparently suffered. But I will not do that on a whim of a trolling comment. Need the deetz

Trapper Gus wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

That's what I'm worried about. That is exactly the reason for proper management of wet lands. I should not be harmed with flooding or water problems because someone else bought cheap land (cheap, for a reason) and then didn't want to follow the law and build on it anyways.

I'm more concerned with possible pollution than improper land usage. That sort of filling of wetlands should be controlled by the county drain commission.

That would definitely be a major concern for me on commercial development sites. For residential, I would think the chief concern for developing wetlands would be improper water management resulting in extra flooding in the area.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Add that to the list of bad assumptions you have about me. It's no where close to the truth, but I'm sure it will make a good story for you to reference occasionally.

Tit for tat here dude.

You make similar accusations about others.

If you had included details, and please do, it sounds like an interesting perspective, you might have avoided this.

Oh I'm not wound up about this, and I knew full well going in that there was a very good chance I might not be able to build on the land.

And as for the tit for tat - you're absolutely correct. I only respond in the manner to which I am addressed. Peeps wanna be assholes, I can do that. Peeps wanna be sincere, I can do that, too. Anyway... onward...

I'd like a process where I can have someone look at the property and tell me "Yeah, that's good. Have fun building your castle" or "Hell no, so much as turn a shovel and we'll throw you in jail." Instead, you must submit detailed plans, stake out everything you want to do, and basically progress your project to the point of backing the dump truck up before they'll come out and "work with you." And I say "work with you" because that's what they say they will do. "Work with you to minimize impact." Whatever the F that means? And when you ask what the definition of a wet land is, you don't get a clear answer. I was literally told, "Well, go and turn a shovel and see if the soil is damp." I was also referred to existing state maps of wetland areas. When I brought up the map, I could see that, based upon what the map told me, there was an entire town of people who had homes built in current "wetlands" so that map was completely useless.

So I gotta spend a lot of money and time before I can get a simple "yay" or "nay." Before yesterday's ruling, even when I purchased the property, I assumed the answer would be "nay." But if that ruling is really gonna stick, then I'm feeling pretty good that I can build. Kind of a happy surprise on what I assumed was throw away money.

There, now Serenity can start to feel bad for me.

TL;DR I gotta spend a lot of time and money and I'm whining about it.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Add that to the list of bad assumptions you have about me. It's no where close to the truth, but I'm sure it will make a good story for you to reference occasionally.

There's an easy solution for you: don't troll ir trash without details. Explain your situation. EZPZ

I'm all for supporting logical reforms to how government operates to get rid of unjust circumstances like you apparently suffered. But I will not do that on a whim of a trolling comment. Need the deetz

You don't care about the "deetz." You made up your mind about me years ago and you just want to twist whatever I say to fit your narrative.

Pound sand.

Major concerns for residential developments for the hinterlands is developers is they are building where the municipal water and waste treatment is non-existent or waste treatment is lagoons if they’ve been allowed to hookup to a neighboring municipality’s water system.

A 75-100 unit development of stand alone and connected 2/3/4 condo’s creates a whole lot of water use and human waste that wasn’t there with farm fields, pasture or wooded areas.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Tit for tat here dude.

You make similar accusations about others.

If you had included details, and please do, it sounds like an interesting perspective, you might have avoided this.

Oh I'm not wound up about this, and I knew full well going in that there was a very good chance I might not be able to build on the land.

And as for the tit for tat - you're absolutely correct. I only respond in the manner to which I am addressed. Peeps wanna be assholes, I can do that. Peeps wanna be sincere, I can do that, too. Anyway... onward...

I'd like a process where I can have someone look at the property and tell me "Yeah, that's good. Have fun building your castle" or "Hell no, so much as turn a shovel and we'll throw you in jail." Instead, you must submit detailed plans, stake out everything you want to do, and basically progress your project to the point of backing the dump truck up before they'll come out and "work with you." And I say "work with you" because that's what they say they will do. "Work with you to minimize impact." Whatever the F that means? And when you ask what the definition of a wet land is, you don't get a clear answer. I was literally told, "Well, go and turn a shovel and see if the soil is damp." I was also referred to existing state maps of wetland areas. When I brought up the map, I could see that, based upon what the map told me, there was an entire town of people who had homes built in current "wetlands" so that map was completely useless.

So I gotta spend a lot of money and time before I can get a simple "yay" or "nay." Before yesterday's ruling, even when I purchased the property, I assumed the answer would be "nay." But if that ruling is really gonna stick, then I'm feeling pretty good that I can build. Kind of a happy surprise on what I assumed was throw away money.

There, now Serenity can start to feel bad for me.

TL;DR I gotta spend a lot of time and money and I'm whining about it.

Don't buy bad land dude. So I was basically right. The purpose of the law is to deter development of such land. And for very good reason. Seems like that is working. If you want to break the rules, you got to jump through hoops. Land like that sits on the market, im sure you can get it evaluated before buying it. Sure it would be nice to have people actually work with you bit we just don't have the staff thanks to the ever present struggle fighting to not tax the rich. You can't have it both ways. You claim to be libertarian leaning and for fiscally responsibility but then complain about not enough government involvement in your problem (i.e. people to walk you through your issue). I would love to hire more environmentally focused staff to do such things but unfortunately people like you have made it their life missions to fight against such things. I have to assume it's because you actually don't want to follow rules, you want to break the rules when the rules become personally problematic for you. I didn't think I'd be laughing this morning but you're making me chuckle real good.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Oh I'm not wound up about this, and I knew full well going in that there was a very good chance I might not be able to build on the land.

And as for the tit for tat - you're absolutely correct. I only respond in the manner to which I am addressed. Peeps wanna be assholes, I can do that. Peeps wanna be sincere, I can do that, too. Anyway... onward...

I'd like a process where I can have someone look at the property and tell me "Yeah, that's good. Have fun building your castle" or "Hell no, so much as turn a shovel and we'll throw you in jail." Instead, you must submit detailed plans, stake out everything you want to do, and basically progress your project to the point of backing the dump truck up before they'll come out and "work with you." And I say "work with you" because that's what they say they will do. "Work with you to minimize impact." Whatever the F that means? And when you ask what the definition of a wet land is, you don't get a clear answer. I was literally told, "Well, go and turn a shovel and see if the soil is damp." I was also referred to existing state maps of wetland areas. When I brought up the map, I could see that, based upon what the map told me, there was an entire town of people who had homes built in current "wetlands" so that map was completely useless.

So I gotta spend a lot of money and time before I can get a simple "yay" or "nay." Before yesterday's ruling, even when I purchased the property, I assumed the answer would be "nay." But if that ruling is really gonna stick, then I'm feeling pretty good that I can build. Kind of a happy surprise on what I assumed was throw away money.

There, now Serenity can start to feel bad for me.

TL;DR I gotta spend a lot of time and money and I'm whining about it.

Don't buy bad land dude. So I was basically right. The purpose of the law is to deter development of such land. And for very good reason. Seems like that is working. If you want to break the rules, you got to jump through hoops. Land like that sits on the market, im sure you can get it evaluated before buying it. Sure it would be nice to have people actually work with you bit we just don't have the staff thanks to the ever present struggle fighting to not tax the rich. You can't have it both ways. You claim to be libertarian leaning and for fiscally responsibility but then complain about not enough government involvement in your problem (i.e. people to walk you through your issue). I would love to hire more environmentally focused staff to do such things but unfortunately people like you have made it their life missions to fight against such things. I have to assume it's because you actually don't want to follow rules, you want to break the rules when the rules become personally problematic for you. I didn't think I'd be laughing this morning but you're making me chuckle real good.

I don't want to break or follow the rules. I just want someone to tell me what the rules are before I start playing the game.

The land is good. Looking even better after yesterday. Thanks Trump appointed Supreme Court justices!

TravelinMan wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

There's an easy solution for you: don't troll ir trash without details. Explain your situation. EZPZ

I'm all for supporting logical reforms to how government operates to get rid of unjust circumstances like you apparently suffered. But I will not do that on a whim of a trolling comment. Need the deetz

You don't care about the "deetz." You made up your mind about me years ago and you just want to twist whatever I say to fit your narrative.

Pound sand.

You sound mad, mad because what I said was basically right. You bought bad land and were mad that you couldn't easily do what you wanted to do. But it's even better, you wanted more people to walk you through the bureaucracy. Except you don't support that kind of government bureaucracy so you basically just want to be able to do what you want to do. Lol. Where have I heard that before?

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

You don't care about the "deetz." You made up your mind about me years ago and you just want to twist whatever I say to fit your narrative.

Pound sand.

You sound mad, mad because what I said was basically right. You bought bad land and were mad that you couldn't easily do what you wanted to do. But it's even better, you wanted more people to walk you through the bureaucracy. Except you don't support that kind of government bureaucracy so you basically just want to be able to do what you want to do. Lol. Where have I heard that before?

You’re right. I don’t support government bureaucracy. But if it must exist, is it too much to ask for it to be functional?

Not mad now. After yesterday I’m planning my barn. You think 100x200 is too ostentatious? :lolz

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Tit for tat here dude.

You make similar accusations about others.

If you had included details, and please do, it sounds like an interesting perspective, you might have avoided this.

Oh I'm not wound up about this, and I knew full well going in that there was a very good chance I might not be able to build on the land.

And as for the tit for tat - you're absolutely correct. I only respond in the manner to which I am addressed. Peeps wanna be assholes, I can do that. Peeps wanna be sincere, I can do that, too. Anyway... onward...

I'd like a process where I can have someone look at the property and tell me "Yeah, that's good. Have fun building your castle" or "Hell no, so much as turn a shovel and we'll throw you in jail." Instead, you must submit detailed plans, stake out everything you want to do, and basically progress your project to the point of backing the dump truck up before they'll come out and "work with you." And I say "work with you" because that's what they say they will do. "Work with you to minimize impact." Whatever the F that means? And when you ask what the definition of a wet land is, you don't get a clear answer. I was literally told, "Well, go and turn a shovel and see if the soil is damp." I was also referred to existing state maps of wetland areas. When I brought up the map, I could see that, based upon what the map told me, there was an entire town of people who had homes built in current "wetlands" so that map was completely useless.

So I gotta spend a lot of money and time before I can get a simple "yay" or "nay." Before yesterday's ruling, even when I purchased the property, I assumed the answer would be "nay." But if that ruling is really gonna stick, then I'm feeling pretty good that I can build. Kind of a happy surprise on what I assumed was throw away money.

There, now Serenity can start to feel bad for me.

TL;DR I gotta spend a lot of time and money and I'm whining about it.

Just a short reply - of course they need detailed plans to determine the impact. Almost every permitting process does. Have you never been involved in building a structure before?

Not sure judging validity of a wetlands map by what others have done is sensible.

TravelinMan wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

You sound mad, mad because what I said was basically right. You bought bad land and were mad that you couldn't easily do what you wanted to do. But it's even better, you wanted more people to walk you through the bureaucracy. Except you don't support that kind of government bureaucracy so you basically just want to be able to do what you want to do. Lol. Where have I heard that before?

You’re right. I don’t support government bureaucracy. But if it must exist, is it too much to ask for it to be functional?

Not mad now. After yesterday I’m planning my barn. You think 100x200 is too ostentatious? :lolz

And any number of chemical businesses are planning to poison your water.

Absolute asinine ruling by this corporate court.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Oh I'm not wound up about this, and I knew full well going in that there was a very good chance I might not be able to build on the land.

And as for the tit for tat - you're absolutely correct. I only respond in the manner to which I am addressed. Peeps wanna be assholes, I can do that. Peeps wanna be sincere, I can do that, too. Anyway... onward...

I'd like a process where I can have someone look at the property and tell me "Yeah, that's good. Have fun building your castle" or "Hell no, so much as turn a shovel and we'll throw you in jail." Instead, you must submit detailed plans, stake out everything you want to do, and basically progress your project to the point of backing the dump truck up before they'll come out and "work with you." And I say "work with you" because that's what they say they will do. "Work with you to minimize impact." Whatever the F that means? And when you ask what the definition of a wet land is, you don't get a clear answer. I was literally told, "Well, go and turn a shovel and see if the soil is damp." I was also referred to existing state maps of wetland areas. When I brought up the map, I could see that, based upon what the map told me, there was an entire town of people who had homes built in current "wetlands" so that map was completely useless.

So I gotta spend a lot of money and time before I can get a simple "yay" or "nay." Before yesterday's ruling, even when I purchased the property, I assumed the answer would be "nay." But if that ruling is really gonna stick, then I'm feeling pretty good that I can build. Kind of a happy surprise on what I assumed was throw away money.

There, now Serenity can start to feel bad for me.

TL;DR I gotta spend a lot of time and money and I'm whining about it.

Just a short reply - of course they need detailed plans to determine the impact. Almost every permitting process does. Have you never been involved in building a structure before?

Not sure judging validity of a wetlands map by what others have done is sensible.

I have, indeed. And in my experience, usually people can tell you "yes" or "no" based upon a description and the land conditions. EGLE is "different" I guess?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Absolute asinine ruling by this corporate court.

Kind of agree, but I'm gonna build while the building is good.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Absolute asinine ruling by this corporate court.

Kind of agree, but I'm gonna build while the building is good.

Makes sense. Make hay while the sun is shining

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Absolute asinine ruling by this corporate court.

Kind of agree, but I'm gonna build while the building is good.

must suck for your neighbors who had the good sense to avoid garbage property where now you who made the bad decision to buy that garbage property can come in and do what you want and probably drastically lower the value of their property. Very fair and awesome.

My neighborhood, the city owned the lots, sold them. A local loud mouth bought one without apparently doing any due diligence... he thought he was plunking a house down one one corner in a wetland. The local inspectors told him he couldn't build that house where he wanted. He went on Facebook, got the local idiot brigade to bitch at the city board until they refunded his cash. The city sucks ass for caving into that idiot. (Among other things)

I would think the local drain commission would be a bigger obstacle than the EPA.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Kind of agree, but I'm gonna build while the building is good.

must suck for your neighbors who had the good sense to avoid garbage property where now you who made the bad decision to buy that garbage property can come in and do what you want and probably drastically lower the value of their property. Very fair and awesome.

LOLZ. You’re so small.

Trapper Gus wrote:I would think the local drain commission would be a bigger obstacle than the EPA.

Not an issue.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:I would think the local drain commission would be a bigger obstacle than the EPA.

Not an issue.

Well until you get sued by your neighbors whose properties are now dealing with the water you're displacing.