Looks like stream buffer zones go away if there is not wrested vegetation on state waters. The difference between a comma and a period.
I'm normally not opposed to buffers because they do prevent a lot of sediment in streams. But in this case the streams were being inundated and the wetlands were being mitigated. Sometimes the environmental lobby goes to extremes.
makerofmaps, post: 322511, member: 9079 wrote: Looks like stream buffer zones go away if there is not wrested vegetation on state waters. The difference between a comma and a period.
I gotta agree with the dissent. The question is "where" the buffer zone is measured from when there is no wrested vegetation. Wetlands were clearly included in the statutory definition of "state waters", and the buffer zone clearly applied to "all state waters". This is an ambiguity that the court should be able to address. We do it all the time when interpreting ambiguous deeds.
