- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 59% of wetlands could be open for development in Louisiana under new EPA proposal
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:24 pm to LemmyLives
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:24 pm to LemmyLives
quote:
FEMA publishes flood zone maps for a reason, and it's required in Texas to disclose in a listing if a property has ever flooded, as well as if flood insurance is in place. If someone wants to pay to insure a shitbox that's going to flood every ten years, that's their problem
If the right developer and politician get together you might as well wipe your arse with flood zone maps and building zones.
0
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:30 pm to member12
Throw a bunch of generic homes, shitty apartments, and generic strip malls up on wetlands and then when it floods the entire community will pretend to be shocked
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:34 pm to BottomlandBrew
quote:
Agree. This is an over-correction. Something needed to be changed on wetland designation, but this is a little too much of a change.
Same. I'm concerned that industrial facilities will be allowed to put whatever they want into their ditches/local drainage with this. They'll say the ditch is usually dry and EPA/LDEQ doesn't have jurisdictional authority.
The second the rule for WOTUS is approved, LA will have a rule to match.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:42 pm to LemmyLives
quote:
someone wants to pay to insure a shitbox that's going to flood every ten years, that's their problem.
And also the problem of people downstream who are now in a flood zone due to runoff.
The area most affected by this change will be the Northshore.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:57 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
quote:
Same. I'm concerned that industrial facilities will be allowed to put whatever they want into their ditches/local drainage with this. They'll say the ditch is usually dry and EPA/LDEQ doesn't have jurisdictional authority. The second the rule for WOTUS is approved, LA will have a rule to match.
That’s got nothing to do with wetlands. Discharge permits/requirements are still in place.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:58 pm to member12
This will be terrible for flood insurance rates.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 3:00 pm to kingbob
quote:
This change will be incredible for infrastructure projects and economic development, but will likely lead to really bad flooding issues down the line where those developments happen.
New 500 house community developments by DR Horton in the swampy lowlands.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 3:00 pm to member12
Terrible idea. Let’s raise insurance rates even more!
Posted on 11/20/25 at 3:05 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
That’s got nothing to do with wetlands. Discharge permits/requirements are still in place.
While the original intent was focused on wetlands, this WOTUS redefining has a much broader effect than just wetlands.
Based on the regulations, you only need a discharge permit if discharging into Waters of the State. So if the offsite ditch that your facility discharges into is no longer legally a tributary/Water of the State; no permit needed.
eta: I have no issue with limiting the scope of 401/404 permitting; especially for isolated/small scale projects. But I'm concerned that the proposed action may seriously limit NPDES/LPDES permitting.
This post was edited on 11/20/25 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 11/20/25 at 3:10 pm to LemmyLives
quote:
FEMA publishes flood zone maps for a reason, and it's required in Texas to disclose in a listing if a property has ever flooded, as well as if flood insurance is in place. If someone wants to pay to insure a shitbox that's going to flood every ten years, that's their problem.
Way to miss the point, Lemmy.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 3:11 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
On one hand, the feds have been overstepping their bounds for the past 15 years on this.
On the other, developers won’t rest until every inch of natural ground is covered in shitty strip malls and DR Horton shitboxes.
I would agree with the developer statement, but I've also worked on projects where a manmade ditch in a cow pasture was considered wetland. The ditch couldn't be filled in, rerouted, or replaced with culverts. The owner had to drive sheet piles down the sides of the ditch, keep it open through the middle of their heavy industrial project, and build bridges over it. Couldn't even spray the vegetation in the ditch to keep it at bay. If you've ever seen 30' tall willows growing in the middle of a chemical plant, that's government overreach and no common sense on the wetland determination by the EPA and USACE.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 3:24 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
quote:
While the original intent was focused on wetlands, this WOTUS redefining has a much broader effect than just wetlands. Based on the regulations, you only need a discharge permit if discharging into Waters of the State. So if the offsite ditch that your facility discharges into is no longer legally a tributary/Water of the State; no permit needed. eta: I have no issue with limiting the scope of 401/404 permitting; especially for isolated/small scale projects. But I'm concerned that the proposed action may seriously limit NPDES/LPDES permitting.
I just don’t see industrial facilities taking on the liability of potentially have to chase down and remediate whatever it is that they’re discharging 10-20 years from now. I can see them maybe being loose and fast with something that wouldn’t pass for BOD, TDS, or turbidity, but not anything chemical or hydrocarbon related.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 3:26 pm to lowhound
quote:
I would agree with the developer statement, but I've also worked on projects where a manmade ditch in a cow pasture was considered wetland. The ditch couldn't be filled in, rerouted, or replaced with culverts. The owner had to drive sheet piles down the sides of the ditch, keep it open through the middle of their heavy industrial project, and build bridges over it. Couldn't even spray the vegetation in the ditch to keep it at bay. If you've ever seen 30' tall willows growing in the middle of a chemical plant, that's government overreach and no common sense on the wetland determination by the EPA and USACE.
Yeah, I agree with that. There’s no reason to say a roadside ditch in a neighborhood is a WOTUS.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 3:36 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
I just don’t see industrial facilities taking on the liability of potentially have to chase down and remediate whatever it is that they’re discharging 10-20 years from now. I can see them maybe being loose and fast with something that wouldn’t pass for BOD, TDS, or turbidity, but not anything chemical or hydrocarbon related.
You raise a good point, and I appreciate the point of view. I just don't have faith in facilities to "do the right thing" if they're not required to.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 4:07 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
quote:
I just don't have faith in facilities to "do the right thing" if they're not required to.
Being required to do something, vs. not being required to do it, but with the expectation of being sued for not doing it are almost the same thing.
Especially with the corporate HSE focus that only adds more stuff on a seemingly annual basis. Risk avoidance (unless you're PG&E) is something that drives a lot of processes. Add institutional inertia, and I don't think the situation is quite that dire.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 5:59 pm to member12
The EPA's current definition of an inland wetland is "areas where the groundwater intercepts the soil surface or where precipitation sufficiently saturates the soil (vernal pools and bogs)." In much of Louisiana, that's pretty a lot of places since the water table ranges from a foot below the surface to 20 feet down for much of the state.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 6:09 pm to kingbob
quote:
This change will be incredible for infrastructure projects and economic development, but will likely lead to really bad flooding issues down the line where those developments happen.
And people complaining about insurance rates. And begging for government aid after a disaster.
Building a home in a former swamp is stupid.
Posted on 11/20/25 at 8:17 pm to Purple Spoon
quote:
and worsen Louisiana’s erosion problems.
Not related at all
Posted on 11/20/25 at 8:24 pm to member12
Just say it. So fricking stupid.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News