Here is an article from my local newspaper that I thought some would find interesting. This family repeatedly did damage to a protected wild trout stream on their property, and after many warnings from the DEP they finally did something about it.

$100,000 fine for Bradford Township family

Here is an article from my local newspaper that I thought some would find interesting. This family repeatedly did damage to a protected wild trout stream on their property, and after many warnings from the DEP they finally did something about it.

$100,000 fine for Bradford Township family

wow, didnt know you couldnt just build dam's and streams on your own...



(note the sarcasm)


if he disturbed 5 acre's of stream thats a LARGE area and i feel he got what he deserved.

matthew

wow, didnt know you couldnt just build dam's and streams on your own...

On your own property? Why not??

On your own property? Why not??

I know you don't like gov't Irate, but I hoe that is sarcastic The land may be owned by a private individual, but the water belongs to all of us...

Of course this did happen in Pennsylvania where trout is the king of all fish! I certainly have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, PA is protecting a natural resource. But on the other hand, are they trampling the owners individual rights? The PA Fish Commission is a bit hypocritical in their efforts to protect native (wild?) trout while simultaneously stocking those invasive rainbows and browns.

But that's just my opinion.

Dean

An interesting reverse scenario takes place frequently in Massachusetts.
Several years ago, all fur trapping was banned. Exactly as predicted by many, beavers underwent a massive population explosion. Although it seems to be reaching a peak as the land's holding capacity is exceeded, for awhile there pretty much wasn't a single flowing stream outside the cities that wasn't dammed.
People with nice little brooks on their property found themselves with ponds they didn't want, often submerging the leaching fields, wells, driveways etc. Technically, it is against the law to rip down the dam. Of course ripping down the dam is useless unless the beavers are removed, but that's illegal too.
After a few years of that, they added a niusence removal clause to the law, but only to to specially licensed animal control officers who soon found they had a lucritive little monopoly going. Still, the beavers can olny be removed if they are flooding public roads or drinking water and other utilities. You can't just get rid of them because you prefer a brook to a pond on your property.
No surprisingly, in certain places, the beavers seemed to suffer from an inordanate amount of "accidents".

Of course this did happen in Pennsylvania where trout is the king of all fish! I certainly have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, PA is protecting a natural resource. But on the other hand, are they trampling the owners individual rights? The PA Fish Commission is a bit hypocritical in their efforts to protect native (wild?) trout while simultaneously stocking those invasive rainbows and browns.

But that's just my opinion.

Dean

Actually there are a few streams like this all around my area and they are streams that are designated as wild trout streams and are not stocked with anything. These streams are to be left as is and after multiple warnings this family still did not listen and kept destroying the stream.

I can understand how someone might think that if this is on your property and you can do whatever you want with it, but anything that this family does to the stream on their property effects the rest of the same stream even off their property. I agree with the DEP's decision here to hold this family accountable after 10 years of damaging this stream for no good reason.

First of all, the stream is not private property, it is public property. In some states, Ohio for example, the adjacent property owner owns the streambed but not the water. But in Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth owns the streambed as well as the water. The adjacent private property owner is not being deprived of any rights to develop his property, because the stream is NOT his property! It is public property, and the Commonwealth has an obligation to the people to protect it.

Secondly, property owners in High Quality (HQ) and Exceptional Value (EV) watersheds (as defined in 25 Pa Code Chapter 93) are not deprived of their rights to develop their properties. In order to obtain the necessary National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), it is required to submit an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (ESCP) and a Post-Construction Stormwater Management Plan (PCSM). The requirements for these plans are more rigorous for developments in HQ and EV watersheds, for good reason. However, if one complies with the anti-degradation requirements of the applicable regulations in 25 Pa Code Chapter 102, a permit WILL be granted.

To sum it up, private property owners DON'T have rights to streambeds, since they don't own them. And private property owners in HQ and EV watersheds DO have rights to develop their property, within the confines of reasonable laws designed to protect the rights of the streambed property owners (the people of the Commonwealth).

As far as I'm concerned, the DEP should not stop at issuing a $113,538.97 fine. Considering that these people were warned repeatedly over the course of many years, I think the property should be confiscated and the perpetrators evicted. The fine should be used to restore the stream, and the property should be turned over the the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) for public fishing access.

Who hijacked Ed's account?

Ed's account of Penn laws are in sync with the regulatory requirements of the two states I have dealt with, New York and California. As well as having similar designations to "High Quality (HQ) and Exceptional Value (EV)" New York also has designations for degradated water bodies and watersheds where more rigorous SPDES criteria are required.

In addition to State requirements Section 404 of the Clean Waters Act part f ( http://www.epa.gov/O...egs/sec404.html ) states that no fill shall be placed within navigable waters without proper permitting and authorization....this includes embankment fill, riprap, and yes, even woody debris (technically). Navigable waters has been legally defended to mean simply that a small canoe or kayak can pass. The Army Corp (USACE) has juristiction below the ordinary high water elevation.

Edited by scottefontay, 14 May 2008 - 01:46 PM.

As far as I'm concerned, the DEP should not stop at issuing a $113,538.97 fine. Considering that these people were warned repeatedly over the course of many years, I think the property should be confiscated and the perpetrators evicted. The fine should be used to restore the stream, and the property should be turned over the the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) for public fishing access.

I agree 100% with you here ed.

I know you don't like gov't Irate, but I hoe that is sarcastic The land may be owned by a private individual, but the water belongs to all of us...

So does the air, but I've yet to see this stop a smoker.

Just out of curiosity...

How is it a home owner can get taken to task for this, but a developer can run pipes underground and bury a "protected" stream? I've seen it several times where an individual isn't allowed to do squat, but those with money interests may do as they please. Prime example : My folks' neighbors have a creek and when I planted native riparian plants along side it, neighbors, not the ones who lived there and whose permission I had, but ones I never knew existed got in my face and next thing I knew I was being warned by some protection agency. Five years later, acreage just below my folk's property got developed and the "protected" stream was buried underground, and they even, against huge protest of the neighbor, went and buried thirty feet of stream on his property, the one I had attempted to plant. There is currently, only about 60 feet of this "protected" stream that even sees the light of day.

Yeah, I know, Oregon is weird.

It's not just Oregon. That's simply the way of things. One of the only natural upland wetlands in my region was recently utterly destroyed by a developer; to ameliorate, the DEC required him to 'restore' it, which consisted of him digging a pit several hundred yards from the original wetland and allowing it to fill with runoff.