Quote:
Originally Posted by T-TOP
i agree with the concept of preserving and restoring wetlands, and people like me paying their dues. For destroying wetlands in the process of building a home.
But i think this statement made earlier in the thread is where i fall..
The biggest rip-off is that based upon the federal definition of wetlands, just about all tracts south of Alex, could be considered wetlands.
when the property has no marsh grass, no water, really nothing that resembles wetlands and you still have to pay, just sounds like more government getting into our pockets.
|
This statement is not going to sound very sensical, but a wetland does not have to be wet all the time!
Bottomland hardwoods go several years sometimes without going under but they are still a wetland
You look at the soils, the vegetation, and the hydrology of that area to make a determination. The problem is that most of our hydrology has been altered so an area that used to be wet year round is now dry. The soils however are still considered 'hydric' meaning they would hold water.
Did you find out any info about prices? Very curious if you don't mind sharing that info