[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
Re: E-M:/ MI federal wetland permits back to feds?
Given the state's pathetical attempts to standup to Kennecott, and in fact the MDEQ's rush to serve as Kennecot's handmaiden in the impending destruction of the Yellow Dog River with the Eagle mine, perhaps federal oversight would be welcome. When Michigan recovers economically, it could always reassume jurisdiction.
From: Chris Reader <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Andrew Mutch <email@example.com>
Cc: Dave Dempsey <firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com
Sent: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 6:26 am
Subject: Re: E-M:/ MI federal wetland permits back to feds?
I think one of the risks is that the feds may have different expectations about what constitutes good management, and our wetlands will be subject to the environmental views of the administration, as opposed to what we expect. They are also likely to be less responsive than state officials.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Andrew Mutch <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Can someone more familiar with the state and federal regulations of wetlands explain whether this will result in certain state wetlands being left unregulated? I can't imagine that every state regulated wetland is going to be subject to federal jurisdiction and review. If this will result in some wetlands resources no longer being protected through a lack of state review, those local governments that currently protect wetlands through wetland ordinances should be given the clear authority to regulate those resources so that are not left unprotected.