|
BUFFERS REQUIRED FOR WETLANDS
in GEORGIA
On July 10th the Georgia Court of Appeals by a 4-3 margin decided to overturn two previous court decisions and require buffers on wetlands. While this decision is appealed to the Georgia Supreme
 | | Click here to view Document |
Court, it's business as usual, see attached document.
Georgia residents, many of which have a job related to construction, believe the existing buffer requirements for protecting streams, creeks and rivers are a good thing! Most people
are familiar with and support Georgia's proactive regulation that requires a preserved area of undisturbed land (Buffer) to be placed along most state waters. For years, written "guidance" from Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) has directed buffers to be measured from the confining cut of a stream channel when "wrested vegetation" is
determined present by a certified Local Issuing Authority (LIA) or GAEPD inspector. For salt water marshes, a recent decision this year by GAEPD Director, Judd Turner overturned the requirement for buffers measured from a "marsh jurisdictional line" as determined by Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division and
 changed the measurement requirement to that of wrested vegetation. Although wetlands are defined by state law as a "state water", they've not been included in the category of state waters that require a buffer since surface water doesn't move fast enough to create wrested vegetation. Today, big fines and/or stop work orders are waiting for those who get caught impacting a buffer along qualified state waters without first obtaining permission or "variance" from the GAEPD.
Many in the construction industry believe the ever growing list of water protection laws constrain land development unnecessarily and over reach their actual value in protecting our water resources. Similarly, many land developers believe this new attempt by
 environmental groups to protect swampy areas with a buffer is just another unnecessary law that takes a bite out of the bottom line! As our population growth generates the need to disturb land and build in formerly undeveloped areas, is it necessary that we increase the protection of wetlands with a buffer when they're already protected by federal law? Nationally, part 404 of the Clean Water Act already requires protection or mitigation of wetlands, but not with a buffer. A few questions to consider regarding this issue include: - Nationally, the Clean Water Act already protects and/or mitigates wetland impacts from construction, but NOT with  a buffer. Why do environmentalists believe it's necessary to add buffer protection at the state level to existing federal regulations? - What real data supports the need to protect wetlands with a buffer also? - What are the environmental and economic benefits provided by preserving wetlands? - Are wetlands with a buffer versus those without, in better condition? - Since buffers for wetlands is a state law and not a federal requirement, will legislators vote next year to exempt weltands from buffer protection? - Will the new accountability for buffer protection around wetlands on the local level result in more enforcement, thereby increasing cost? Personally, I'm grateful for the discussions and arguments we have as a nation with issues like this one; buffers around wetlands. As we work together, let's not forget the qualities that have made our nation great....a thriving economy with a strong construction sector that plays a major role in paying for our air, water, land and wildlife resources....only in America! | 
OREGON, Ohio (AP) - State lawmakers from Ohio's Lake Erie region are gathering to talk about what can be done to improve water quality and combat the blooms of algae on the lake. 
.A.M 
