BushAxe, post: 456495, member: 11897 wrote: This is the most accurate statement on this thread. There is a big difference between a federal employee and a government contractor. Also, any surveying that results in change in grade will effect stormwater discharge from the site. That can effect the public living on private property in the same watershed.
Bottom line, its always better to check with the state board where the work is taking place.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would agree with that. I know that, from a legal sense, the crews on base here can do their work as construction surveying is not regulated by our board (whether I think that is a wise policy is irrelevant). I just do not get why the feds would not have a requirement for an LS in the state where the work takes place.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Jawja, post: 456501, member: 12766 wrote: I just do not get why the feds would not have a requirement for an LS in the state where the work takes place.
"The feds" -- meaning the contracting agency -- may or may not have such a requirement, it depends on the agency and possibly the region. But the overarching concept is that the sovereign isn't subject to the rules of its political subdivisions (states and local agencies). It may choose -- and often does choose -- to comply with those rules as a matter of good will or convenience, but it doesn't have to. So if a federal agency tells someone, licensed or not, that it's okay to conduct work that would otherwise be regulated by the state on land under that agency's control, there's no need to check with the state about it -- the fed's blessing supersedes the state's wishes. Further more, In my opinion the state would not have standing to sanction the practitioner for violating state regulations in connection any actions undertaken on federal land.