Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post - Wetlands re-definitions aim of Senate bill

DickR · 01-13-2011, 10:05 AM

In the survey done before applying for our shoreline permit, a very small "jurisdictional wetland" area was initially flagged, based on surface probing. In the end, actual digging showed that the soil failed the test for such a designation (whew!). However, in investigating the definitions and determination of such a wetland, it seems that there is no minimum size for an area to be designated a wetland. Theoretically, a single spot of one square foot could be so designated, which would be absurd.

At what size would an area otherwise meeting the criteria to be called "jurisdictional wetland" rationally be declared as such? One square foot would be absurd, so how about two square feet? That is equally absurd. By the "argument of the beard" ("How many hairs does it take to make a beard? Pluck one and the man is beardless?), one could sneak up on some number, a square foot at a time, to a point where it would seem reasonable finally to call the area a "wetland." But would having just a single square foot shy of that number make the area not a wetland? That is equally absurd.

If the state is going to fiddle with redefinitions of wetlands, it might be a good time to define minimum size to qualify, so as not to unnecessarily encumber a property having a tiny wet area of no practical environmental concern.

01-13-2011, 10:05 AM	#2
DickR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 749 Thanks: 4 Thanked 259 Times in 171 Posts	Wetland minimum size definition needed In the survey done before applying for our shoreline permit, a very small "jurisdictional wetland" area was initially flagged, based on surface probing. In the end, actual digging showed that the soil failed the test for such a designation (whew!). However, in investigating the definitions and determination of such a wetland, it seems that there is no minimum size for an area to be designated a wetland. Theoretically, a single spot of one square foot could be so designated, which would be absurd. At what size would an area otherwise meeting the criteria to be called "jurisdictional wetland" rationally be declared as such? One square foot would be absurd, so how about two square feet? That is equally absurd. By the "argument of the beard" ("How many hairs does it take to make a beard? Pluck one and the man is beardless?), one could sneak up on some number, a square foot at a time, to a point where it would seem reasonable finally to call the area a "wetland." But would having just a single square foot shy of that number make the area not a wetland? That is equally absurd. If the state is going to fiddle with redefinitions of wetlands, it might be a good time to define minimum size to qualify, so as not to unnecessarily encumber a property having a tiny wet area of no practical environmental concern.