DEBATE OF '98- responsibilities of forest land owners

Thomas Kellar tkellar at FSP.FSP.COM
Thu Apr 23 14:11:38 EST 1998

One interesting way a cement company altered wetlands is
documented in:

For federal regulations, the organization that wants to alter
the wetlands environment is responsible for filing the enviromental
impact statement.  This is a little like the cigarette companies
doing their own "scientific" studies that find no links between
smoking and lung cancer.  I.e., the fox guarding the chickens.

Further, for federal regulations, section 404f has some exemptions for
"ongoing farming, ranching and silviculture". 
(The above keeps me on topic.)

I would appreciate some pointers regarding Ohio EPA regulations,
but they seem more oriented toward eliminating pollution discharge
into Ohio waters and eliminating water pollution sources, not
toward saving what little clean sources of water we have (and
it is not just people that drink water) in the form of wetlands.

One of the growing industries is POU (point of use) water treatment
technologies.  E.g., Granulated Activated Carbon filters, Reverse Osmosis
filters, and so forth.  One of the reasons for this growth is our past bad
environmental habits.  Our ground water is becoming more and more
polluted.  We actually have cleaned up some of the surface waters such as
streams and lakes but this is not true for underground sources.  Given
that wetlands are primary sources for groundwater.  Why is it that
something like a golf course can locate (on sacred private) land right
next to a designated wetland?  Golf courses are one of the most pernicious
polluters that exist.  Far worse than most farms.  This is right down
the street from me.  I feel sorry for my grandchildren (that currently
do not exist-I think.)

> M Courtney wrote
> > Thomas Kellar wrote
> > In my part of Ohio, the developers do whatever they wish, including
> > remove wetlands.  I guess this is a case of monetary democracy in
> > action.  You must not have enough money.
> The current legal requirement is that every acre of wetland destroyed must be
> replaced with 1.5 acres of new wetland, usually in the same watershed.  There
> are no loopholes, so if new development is in compliance, I bet that they
> created 1.5 acres of wetland in some less-visable area close to where you saw
> the development going in.  This takes a lot of money and is usually only done
> by developers when the potential value of the devlopment on the wetland far
> exceeds the potential cost of creating half-again as much new wetland
> somewhere else.

Thomas Kellar   w8twk     Tkellar at
    How can I wear the harness of toil, and sweat at the daily round,
     While in my soul forever The drums of Pictdom sound? - REHoward

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list