Wetlands re-definitions aim of Senate bill

Just Sold · 01-13-2011, 09:03 AM

Wetlands re-definitions aim of Senate bill
Wednesday, January 12, 2011

A Senate committee will hold hearings Thursday on three bills aimed at clarifying the state's wetlands and shoreline protection laws and making it a bit easier for the construction industry.

One -- Senate Bill 19 -- would alter the definition of prime wetlands, limiting it to bodies of water of more than 5 acres. Another -- SB 21 -- would redefine wetlands to exclude man-made wetlands of less then 10 acres, unless creased as mitigation for other building projects.

A third, SB 20, would exempt those who already received a wetlands alteration permit from getting some shoreline protection permits.

"At this point, we are going to monitor" the legislation, said Mark Holden, president of the Associated Builders and Contractors of New Hampshire and Vermont. "But it seems like it's trying to make things reasonable and more appropriate for those trying to build."

The bills are sponsored by Sen. Bob Odell, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which will hold the hearings on Thursday in Room 102 of the Legislative Office Building. -- BOB SANDERS/NEW HAMPSHIRE BUSINESS REVIEW

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.

Irish mist · 01-14-2011, 01:36 AM

You make a very good point DickR on the size issue. You might want to contact your state rep of state senator about this & see if you can work with them on this issue. Several years back I spent over a weeks time ( as a citizen ) helping a NH state rep craft & write a bill that reached the NH house floor ( lol, we lost the vote ). In a small state like NH you can often reach your lawmakers easier, and get more done on an issure than you first thought.

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.

01-14-2011, 01:36 AM	#3
Irish mist Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 683 Thanks: 127 Thanked 85 Times in 49 Posts	You make a very good point DickR on the size issue. You might want to contact your state rep of state senator about this & see if you can work with them on this issue. Several years back I spent over a weeks time ( as a citizen ) helping a NH state rep craft & write a bill that reached the NH house floor ( lol, we lost the vote ). In a small state like NH you can often reach your lawmakers easier, and get more done on an issure than you first thought.