Received a letter from the D.E.Q. about that pond I had dug.

[copperkid3]

Last Friday's mail had an unwelcome delivery in it, by way of a letter from the local D.E.Q. (Dept. of Environmental Quality) office,
informing me that an investigation had developed after one of their employees discovered the diggings and knew that someone hadn't
bothered to secure the necessary permit before doing such.  Apparently they came out on May 21 and took photos of what they could
see from the roadway, checked their numerous rulings and then cited them in their letter to me, with instructions to cease and desist....
(too late, already done...although I do have some dirt from the dredgings that I intended to move in the near future.)

The letter further went on to mention several other violations of various regulations under their authority and then went on to request
that I provide them in writing, a response to (7) of the following questions/statements:

1.) The project purpose.
2.) Date work was undertaken.
3.) Name(s) of the contractor(s) who did the work.
4.) Property owner's full name.
5.) A copy of any wetland determinations or delineations conducted on the property.
6.) A copy of the current development plans, including plan views, cross sections, and
elevations of the previously existing ground surface and proposed final grades.
7.) Any other relevant information that will assist our review.

I noted that they had also carbon copied the letter; having sent them out to my township officials,
the SESC (Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control of the DNR) and my county health department as well.

The final paragraph began with the summation: "We anticipate your cooperation in resolving this matter.".....
which of course sounds a whole lot better than: "We're from the gooberment and we're here to help you."

Anyway, I decided to take them up on their last offer and am hoping they are true to their word, so went in town
to their office this last Monday afternoon and met with the youngster who signed the letter.  I swear they're getting
them fresh out of college nowadays......but I decided to play it by ear and keep it light and friendly and started the conversation
with a bit of teasing, by stating that normally when I deal with bureaucrats, they aren't too friendly or willing to work things out and
that I was going to take a chance that he was sincere about that last paragraph in his letter, because I wanted to get things smoothed out
as well and get this thing behind us.  He seemed to take it in the manner I intended and we found that we had many things in common and were
basically on the same page as far as what we hoped to accomplish; both on my property and how it related to ALL the necessary regulations that they have to enforce.

I did tell him that I had no problem with getting #4 in the list above (which elicted a chuckle on both sides), but asked him if we were going to have a problem if I happened to leave #3 blank.

Before he had a chance to reply, I mentioned that since it was my property and since I was the one who hadn't bothered to get a permit and was in violation
of the various regs, that the burden should be mine alone to face and I had no intention of ratting out anyone else .....that is, if there was someone else....
since I could fib a bit and tell them that I'd been working with a shovel for quite some time on that project and they just happened to spot the work last month.....
he grinned at that, but then went on to say, that No, I didn't have to fill that one out and he would understand my reasoning on the matter.  He then went on to explain
why they would like my cooperation in finding out who did the work, as they like to know those contractors who are misleading the general public with such stuff like:
"You don't need to get a permit..."  Those are the guys that they like to go after.  Anyway, long story short (too late - you should know me by now!)
he wants to come out with another college in a couple weeks and do a walk thru of the property and see what needs to be done to remedy the situation to both our satisfactions.....
or at least that's what he led me to believe.  Now normally, I'm loathe to allow ANYONE to just come onto my property unless they are a friend and invited; certainly I don't go out
looking for gooberment agents to come and see what else they might find that doesn't meet with their satisfaction.  But I'm not sure there's really too much that I can do about it,
seeing as how they seem to have all the power in this country in regulating bodies of water, etc.   We the people pay the property taxes, but have little say on how we can enjoy
the land to it's full potential.

This has been nearly a lifetime dream of mine....at least since I was 16 yrs old and shortly after my folks had purchased the property. 
I knew someday, that I'd probably build a house that overlooked a marshland, which would be made into a small pond and become the
centerpiece of the property.  It's taken me 47 more years to see that dream become reality, and I'm not about to give it up and have
to fill it back in again.  The DEQ guy doesn't sound like that either.....or at least as long as things are progressing in the direction that
we are now heading.  He did mention that the permit fee (extortion) would still have to be paid and that in addition to that and to probably
to discourage other scofflaws as well, that a fine of the same amount is normally applied as well.  Since the 'normal' fee is $500 for a pond
of the size I've had dug, the end result will likely be around $1000.00.  In addition, because there are other violations, these would under
normal circumstances be added on as well, but that because I was 'cooperating' in getting the matter resolved, that the likihood would be
that they would be bundled under the primary permit and wouldn't be considered in the overall costs.

I'm just thankful that they didn't come out 2 and 3 days ago when we had some real frog-strangling rainfall coming down. 
The first one left 6" in less than 3 hrs and the last one was even worse!!!  The impounded stream breached the dike in 5 or 6 places
and water was going into (and back out of) the pond at an alarming rate.  Took 2 days for the waters that were trapped on the other side of
the debris mound to go down.  More than likely, we will be having to put in several 6" and 8" drains to eliminate such from happening in the future. 
And we might also be able to get something done about the too small 18" concrete culvert that takes the stream out to the county drain under the
power company's R.O.W.  Both they and our county drain commissioner were contacted by myself nearly 10 yrs ago about the matter, but refused to do
anything about it; claiming it wasn't a designated county stream and therefore not under his jurisdiction.  All this despite my pleadings that the drain was plugged
and the stream was then eroding another path across my lower property.

Turns out that the DEQ employees aren't too happy with their past dealings with the drain commissioner either. 
So hopefully together, we can get something positive done.  Will keep ya'll apprised.        

[Maura]

That seems like a lot of money for a pond permit.

One day it will be absolutely beautiful.

[copperkid3]

Jun 19, 2015 5:50:44 GMT Maura said:

That seems like a lot of money for a pond permit.

One day it will be absolutely beautiful.

The added 'price' of doing business.... with the gooberment.

Better to beg forgiveness than to ask for permission it seems.


If I had to ask, I might not have gotten everything that
I wanted and it STILL would have cost me $500 for the permit.

So for $500 more.....something got done.  Ehhh.  It just irks me that we pay taxes and then permit fees to do something to our own property.

You can be assured that that carbon copy to my local officials will not go unnoticed come reassessing time.  Ponds add value to the land.

Thanks alot BIG BROTHER!!!

[wolfmom]

So sorry to hear of your letter from the DEQ. I hope that filling out the paperwork and paying the fine they quoted will resolve this and someone doesn't get nasty and make an example of you. 

[motdaugrnds]

I do feel for you; however, I must add the D.E.Q is there to PROTECT your environmental water flows; and your contractor should have asked you before the excavation was even started whether or not you needed permits. (That would have been the respondible thing to do because many land owners never think of needing permits to do whatever they want on their own land. However, that contractor should have known about governing rules.)

I'm sure you understand landowners DO have a certain responsibility to other land owners around them, especially when it concerns the flow of water (underground, over land, etc.)

I'm glad you're taking measures to get your situation resolved amicably.

[amylou]

Where do you live that you have to put up with this?

[mollymckee]

You must be on the east coast, if you had done that out here and been caught you would get thousands of dollars in fines, and had to put everything back. There are federal wet lands laws, and you might be suprized what constitutes a wet land. Wet land and water rights laws are something you don't mess with here, unless you want to pay huge fines and have an approved contractor put everything back.

One thing to keep in mind is that if you sell one of the statements the sell has to sign is that everything is permitted, or disclose what isn't. Non permitted improvements can keep a buyer from getting a mortgage.

[Maura]

Someone has to inspect the pond. If it does not have a shallow edge, where you can walk up to your ankles, then your knees, you have to have fence around it. The office will also check their maps to see if your pond would be in a delicate ecosystem.

[here to stay]

The trouble is as always that some people do a responsible job and should not have to go around paying to prove it but there are those that will wreck everyone else's land just to get what they want and they should have to pay for that mindset when they screw up. But I can't see how to accomplish both things.
For all the neighbors to get together to sue the idiots with backhoes woukd be a heavy cost to them for something that shoukd never have been their problem.

The best I can suggest is that, after their review, they find that you did in essence what they woukd have asked you to do in the first place, that you ask them to waive the penalty.

[copperkid3]

Jun 19, 2015 15:20:21 GMT Maura said:

Someone has to inspect the pond. If it does not have a shallow edge, where you can walk up to your ankles, then your knees, you have to have fence around it. The office will also check their maps to see if your pond would be in a delicate ecosystem.

Ummmmm..... there already IS a fence around the area that the pond sits,
as well as most of the rest of the property because I graze a herd of goats
that have fancied the neighbors backyard grass for far too long to remember.
(I keep trying to remind them that they are browsers - not grazers, but they're
goats after all and just plain hard headed in matters of the cud.)
Seems they like to take the long, around the back way scenic route to get
there and this usually involves crossing over the stream to get to the county
roadway and then walking along it about 300 feet west before crossing back
over the stream (which has a permitted driveway culvert) and then walking
another 1/8 of mile over to the aforementioned neighbors; having crossed over
the backside of my property, my dad's 10 acres and another neighbors backyard
before finally arriving to their banquet of choice!!!  Of course the neighbor's
wife is less than thrilled and has called the cops on more than one occasion.
I can assure you that it's been quite awhile since they've busted out, but if
the fence has to go, then so will the goats.  There's just no other place that
I can graze them; short of my dad's property and he won't allow it for now. 
I was greatly torn over just having the pond dug; as it eliminated about
half of their available pasture land in that area.

And that was just ONE of the things that I allegedly did in violation of Parts
301 (Inland Lakes and Streams) & 303 (Wetlands Protection) of the Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended and
the administrative rules for Parts 301 &303.  I.O.W., you can't fence in, on,
or within a designated wetland without THEIR permission and special dispensation.

I even crossed a running stream with a fence to keep my goaties in.....that's a big NO-NO as well.

When I 'suggested' putting in a large culvert or a bridge across it and then running the fence along one of the edges,
was informed, that that is also frowned upon and if allowed; (big IF), it would require a special permit in each & any case or circumstance.

B.T.W.: Because of my "digging" and re-arranging the wetlands and stream impoundment,
 there is actually MORE area that have wetland features than before it was started.
And I'm not including the pond in that estimation either. 

Which seems that that fact should count for something with the feds.....
 

[solargeek]

Jun 19, 2015 14:49:51 GMT mollymckee said:

I wish you the best of luck.

Having dealt with many state and federal agencies on environmental issues, the issues surrounding wetlands, the Army Corps of Engineers, federal and state regulations, and ponds/streams were all areas I stayed away from. While the local guy you dealt with seems fair from your description, his bosses may rein him in and nitpick.

What mollymckee said is true however. When we sold a house that had encapsulated asbestos pipe wrappings, we had to produce the previous owner's records of what the contractor had done to encapsulate the pipes in order for our buyer to get a mortgage. 

Good luck to you.

[Bear Foot Farm]

The impounded stream breached the dike in 5 or 6 places

Consider yourself lucky if the EPA doesn't get involved, and makes you restore things to their previous conditions.

They don't like changes to flowing water

[Awnry Abe]

Mail them a pitchfork.

[Deleted]

CK, what county are you in?  I might be able to help.  

Also do you have a cross section plan?  

At one point in time (the late 1980's) I worked for the local SWCD, and had SCS engineering approval for smaller projects.  If it was done accoording to SCS (or what ever they are now) specs.

PA 347 should only come into play if your project is within 500' of a lake or stream.
203 only if it impacts navigable rivers or lakes (Army Corp of Engineers)

[bigjon]

well I don't believe here in n.y.i need a permit for a pond.buuuut i'll find out.i get my bkhoe home this wknd!i'll keep u posted!

[Bear Foot Farm]

Jun 21, 2015 14:14:49 GMT bigjon said:

well I don't believe here in n.y.i need a permit for a pond.buuuut i'll find out.i get my bkhoe home this wknd!i'll keep u posted!

If you're smart, you will find out what is required before doing any digging 

[misskay]

This guy's got a job to do and he's going to do it with or without your help. I think you are wise to work with him instead of against him. Together, you two should be able to find a solution that works for both. People are people and if you cop an attitude or get on his bad side, he might be tempted to take it personal and work against you. You both sound like reasonable men though so I see this thing working out.

[sawmilljim]

Jun 21, 2015 15:06:04 GMT Bear Foot Farm said:

Jun 21, 2015 14:14:49 GMT bigjon said:

well I don't believe here in n.y.i need a permit for a pond.buuuut i'll find out.i get my bkhoe home this wknd!i'll keep u posted!

If you're smart, you will find out what is required before doing any digging 

I been accused of a lot of things in my life but being smart has never been one of them. Here I dug my pond I borrowed a TD15 and ask no one . Now I wish it was filled up if I get my hands on a dozier again it will be . It don't  cutoff nor diverts anyone's water. It is on land in the USA worked for and paid for by the wife and I .So by what stretch of anyone's imagination would any American think I need to PAY for  permission. 

[Bear Foot Farm]

Jun 24, 2015 3:12:00 GMT sawmilljim said:

Jun 21, 2015 15:06:04 GMT Bear Foot Farm said:

If you're smart, you will find out what is required before doing any digging 

I been accused of a lot of things in my life but being smart has never been one of them. Here I dug my pond I borrowed a TD15 and ask no one . Now I wish it was filled up if I get my hands on a dozier again it will be . It don't  cutoff nor diverts anyone's water. It is on land in the USA worked for and paid for by the wife and I .So by what stretch of anyone's imagination would any American think I need to PAY for  permission. 

It's not "imagination" that there are lots of laws and regulations about ponds and streams, ranging from Federal to local. Reality is if you violate those, the penalty is often much higher than the permits.

Your situation is different in that it didn't involve a flowing stream, but there still may be regulations that apply

I'm not saying that's how it "should be", but just how it is.

[mollymckee]

If you think you will have to get permits in the east, you will really have to get permits in the west. If you don't have first water rights, it probably won't happen. The state of Washington has a program called "Eye in the sky". It takes aerial photos of the whole state every 2 years, the photos are available to local and counties as well and many compare them to earlier photos. If there are changes, you had better have permits, or you going to have lots of court time, fines, and probably have to restore everything. You simply do not fool with water rights out here.

[sawmilljim]

Jun 24, 2015 14:30:20 GMT Bear Foot Farm said:

Jun 24, 2015 3:12:00 GMT sawmilljim said:

I been accused of a lot of things in my life but being smart has never been one of them. Here I dug my pond I borrowed a TD15 and ask no one . Now I wish it was filled up if I get my hands on a dozier again it will be . It don't  cutoff nor diverts anyone's water. It is on land in the USA worked for and paid for by the wife and I .So by what stretch of anyone's imagination would any American think I need to PAY for  permission. 

It's not "imagination" that there are lots of laws and regulations about ponds and streams, ranging from Federal to local. Reality is if you violate those, the penalty is often much higher than the permits.

Your situation is different in that it didn't involve a flowing stream, but there still may be regulations that apply

I'm not saying that's how it "should be", but just how it is.

Correct it is how it is because people complied with everything TPTB threw out at us . It was just easier to comply than stand up for our rights in more things than just a pond .Now if one looked there is a fee or permit for darn near every thing one wants to do, on their own land . Most everything comes back to money and control at all levels of government . Let them sheep know who is boss and make em pay is the name of the game now days .

[solargeek]

Jun 19, 2015 19:27:49 GMT copperkid3 said:

Jun 19, 2015 15:20:21 GMT Maura said:

B.T.W.: Because of my "digging" and re-arranging the wetlands and stream impoundment,
 there is actually MORE area that have wetland features than before it was started.
And I'm not including the pond in that estimation either. 

Which seems that that fact should count for something with the feds.....
 

Just so you know, this does generall work in your favor as "mitigation" which is what subdivision developers use to be allowed to fill wetlands (with a permit). IF you had pics of before and after and could highlight how you "mitigated" (use that word) the wetlands you displaced, that could help.

I'm thinking you are in Michigan based on your statutes and names of DNR sections. If so, read this it will help you immensely and you can look stuff up that you will need. Again, Good luck to you. I hope it ends well.

www.watershedcouncil.org/water%20resources/wetlands/wetland-regulations/

[copperkid3]

Jun 24, 2015 16:53:23 GMT solargeek said:

Jun 19, 2015 19:27:49 GMT copperkid3 said:

Just so you know, this does generall work in your favor as "mitigation" which is what subdivision developers use to be allowed to fill wetlands (with a permit). IF you had pics of before and after and could highlight how you "mitigated" (use that word) the wetlands you displaced, that could help.

I'm thinking you are in Michigan based on your statutes and names of DNR sections. If so, read this it will help you immensely and you can look stuff up that you will need. Again, Good luck to you. I hope it ends well.

www.watershedcouncil.org/water%20resources/wetlands/wetland-regulations/

At this point in time, I can neither confirm nor deny that 'rumor'....

However, I greatly appreciate your input and contribution with the attached link and will be studying it in the days ahead.

Monday nights torrential downpower was unbelievable in the total volume of water that has been coming off this (less than a mile long) watershed.

It immediately breached my impoundment dike and cut a pathway through it that is about 6-8 feet long and about 2+ feet deep and because the water

is now going through it, the water in the impoundment has dropped overall; it has NOT been going out thru the 18" concrete culvert that goes under

the Consumers Power Co. R.O.W. and thus into the county drainage system that takes it eventually to the river.  THIS has been my bone-of-contention with

TPTB; i.e. our county drain commissioner, about 10 yrs ago, when I brought the fact that the culvert was both too small to handle the flow and it had become plugged

which was then causing the water to seek another alternative route across the back of my property and was carving away valuabe topsoil that didn't need to be lost.

He chose to ignore the issue until I threatened to go to the press and then reluctantly came out and 'investigated'.....but just as quickly swept it under the rug by claiming

that the no-name stream was NOT a designated county drain and therefore NOT his responsibility.   Of course he never would disclose what made a stream a designated county

drain, nor did he advise on whose responsibilty it was.  My reasoning for initially contacting him, was that since he is an elected official and since the title of his position is COUNTY

DRAIN COMMISSIONER, that HE was the first step in making things work the way they are supposed to...... foolish peasant.... you should know better than that!!!  Our 'local' officials

have given away their responsibilities to the feds and consequently we have new taskmasters who give an accounting to NO MAN.....quite the opposite in fact.  We now have to answer

to them.  Unfortunately, it has now come to a head and the best that I can hope for now, is that the enemy of my enemy will be somewhat friendly towards me and my cause.  Hopefully

the D.E.Q. reps will see the problem of the too small drain; the 'fact' that ALL of the water from this stream used to run thru it in the past and that various aerial maps over the years will

confirm this and use the necessary means to see that the other factors are contacted and that the problem is rectified to the way it should be.  Well, that and I also still get to keep my pond!  

[solargeek]

You know, I did not look it up but see what the state says about storm water retention ponds. Granted, you basically built one without a permit but since you have 10 years of proof the problem existed, you contacted the appropriate person, perhaps they have that report or you have some proof of the government official who came out and admitted the problem existed. That constitutes good faith in most jurisdictions.

It might be a good idea NOT to post anymore on this but to write up a chronology of the flooding, the steps you took in the past to fix it by contacting the local official who EVEN 10 years ago my have had a duty to do something about it under the federal STORMWATER runoff regs that were put in place around that time.   THINK ABOUT IT.  An official is contacted by a homeowner concerned for runoff, the damage caused by it and the soil eroding into the river (you had said).  He does a shoddy investigation and proposes no actions or next steps even it would be with a different agency/county/gov. unit.

Food for thought and how best to use it.


Here are some of the federal links.

water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/stormwater/Stormwater-Outreach-Materials-and-Reference-Documents.cfm

water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/stormwater/index.cfm

(Note they are not talking to you about an NPDES permit so don't get lost in that swamp -- hehe yes I punned)

Note the basic regs were REVISED in 2007 meaning they were likely in place as I suspect in 2005 (we built in 2002-2003 in WI and our builder had to implement the stormwater regs re for building sites-- it was really new stuff then). EPA always has too much but you should at least learn what the local guy should have done AT THAT TIME. For example, did he send you a letter summarizing anything (and do you have it)? If not, should he have? You were seeking help and guidance. Tell the current guys that.

Make notes of everything they tell you - even while they are speaking. If they ask just say the truth, you are nervous, afraid you will forget, need their help to resolve this and Want to resolve it.

Maybe this fairly postive "Wet Pond/Best Management Practices" piece by the FEDS (who own the wetland rules; states just pass as strict of regs and implement them but if you irritate a state enough they can call in the Feds) can be used as a talking point(s) or guidance in your questioning of "gee what can I do to make this right" conversation.

water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/swbmp/Wet-Ponds.cfm

Since you don't want to say where you live (good call) I offer this search I ran which was VERY FRUITFUL even if you don't live in MI. Read the stuff.
FOR EXAMPLE IN ANN ARBOR, YOU MIGHT QUALIFY FOR A STORMWATER CREDIT IF you perform certain mitigation of stormwater. See what they said - very interesting maybe it is a state program. Granted you did this without the proper investigation, oversight and permits but you did TRY 10 years earlier.

Ooops, here is the search I ran. stormwater runoff regulations and retention ponds michigan 2014

Ok enough from me.
Hope this helps.

[Deleted]

Jun 19, 2015 19:27:49 GMT copperkid3 said:

Jun 19, 2015 15:20:21 GMT Maura said:

Someone has to inspect the pond. If it does not have a shallow edge, where you can walk up to your ankles, then your knees, you have to have fence around it. The office will also check their maps to see if your pond would be in a delicate ecosystem.

Ummmmm..... there already IS a fence around the area that the pond sits,
as well as most of the rest of the property because I graze a herd of goats
that have fancied the neighbors backyard grass for far too long to remember.
(I keep trying to remind them that they are browsers - not grazers, but they're
goats after all and just plain hard headed in matters of the cud.)
Seems they like to take the long, around the back way scenic route to get
there and this usually involves crossing over the stream to get to the county
roadway and then walking along it about 300 feet west before crossing back
over the stream (which has a permitted driveway culvert) and then walking
another 1/8 of mile over to the aforementioned neighbors; having crossed over
the backside of my property, my dad's 10 acres and another neighbors backyard
before finally arriving to their banquet of choice!!!  Of course the neighbor's
wife is less than thrilled and has called the cops on more than one occasion.
I can assure you that it's been quite awhile since they've busted out, but if
the fence has to go, then so will the goats.  There's just no other place that
I can graze them; short of my dad's property and he won't allow it for now. 
I was greatly torn over just having the pond dug; as it eliminated about
half of their available pasture land in that area.

And that was just ONE of the things that I allegedly did in violation of Parts
301 (Inland Lakes and Streams) & 303 (Wetlands Protection) of the Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended and
the administrative rules for Parts 301 &303.  I.O.W., you can't fence in, on,
or within a designated wetland without THEIR permission and special dispensation.

I even crossed a running stream with a fence to keep my goaties in.....that's a big NO-NO as well.

When I 'suggested' putting in a large culvert or a bridge across it and then running the fence along one of the edges,
was informed, that that is also frowned upon and if allowed; (big IF), it would require a special permit in each & any case or circumstance.

B.T.W.: Because of my "digging" and re-arranging the wetlands and stream impoundment,
 there is actually MORE area that have wetland features than before it was started.
And I'm not including the pond in that estimation either. 

Which seems that that fact should count for something with the feds.....
 

Reads like you have a nasty neighbor to me. The only thing you can do is let them rule your life or sell.

[copperkid3]

The neighbor is fine and well within HER RIGHTS to be free of having to worry about stepping over goat berries spread across her yard....
not to mention she seems to like using her riding lawn mower MUCH more than having the uneven appearance of a goat-plucked lawn.

Most of the time when they would go over there, it was when the fence wasn't fully completed and those little buggers knew it and took advantage of the situation.

Once I had them 'corraled' so to speak, the only times they've managed to get out, was when the original fence posts (semi-treated landscape timbers)
rotted off at the base and the big buck discovered that by pushing against the fence panels, then the entire thing would slowly lean over and the entire
herd were able to march across. That and when the pond was dug and the contractor didn't replace the fasteners and they found that weakness and fortunately,
I found them BEFORE they had time to make the pilgrimage to the promised land.

[copperkid3]

Well....in another 2 hours, the D.E.Q. guy is supposed to come out for an appointment to go over the project
and point out the things that need to be corrected...that and to get their late fee and penalty. Unfortunately,
it's been raining on and off for the past few hours and it looks a bit wet to go do the big inspection....some of
us will likely get their feet wet. Will let ya'll know the outcome in a few more hours.

BTW:  He missed the first appointment last week, that HE set up in the office a month ago when I went in to see him.
Tried calling and leaving messages on his voice mail, then contacted his secretary and left a message to have him call me.
Others in the office stated that he was out in the field, doing inspections but would get back to me when he got back in.

Another day went by and I again tried calling and leaving more messages.  Mid-afternoon, he finally got around to calling me
back and admitted that he'd forgotten to put it on his calender, but then made the 'excuse' that he'd been in a meeting when
I'd initially called......REALLY?!!!  So which one is it?  Was he out "in the field" doing inspections or stuck in a meeting?
And why the apparent need to lie about it?  Oh wait.....they're from the gooberment!!!  Gotcha...

On a somewhat more positive note, he did mention that during our first discussion, that he felt that we were on the same page
as far as what we knew needing doing and while he'd like to just save the time and give me carte blanche to do what had to be
done, he still felt that it might be better served if we re-scheduled for today's meeting so he could get a feel of the place and what
actually needed doing.  Yeah.....right.  Not sure if I should request that cameras remain in the vehicle while this "inspection" takes place.

My level of trust diminishes proportionately when I catch ya in a simple lie about why you missed our first meeting.

[copperkid3]

Jul 7, 2015 14:12:44 GMT Tallpines said:

Perhaps his "meeting" was with a client "out in the field".

Hope all goes well ........

Hmmmmm..... hadn't thought of it quite like that.....so I guess that could be a possibility. 

As far as how it went today, the day started off with nearly constant showers; not a downpower,
but more of a steady drizzle which is still going on and will likely continue until this evening.  He called
twice before the scheduled meeting; the first one the machine caught it while I was out feeding the
birds....I could tell from his voice and the way he worded it, that he didn't really want to come out
TODAY, but was hoping to re-schedule for later, but because he'd messed up the first meeting, he
would be out if he didn't hear from me.  So I decided to not call him back and let him come.  No dice,
he tried again a half hour before the time he was to be here and strongly "hinted" that tomorrow might
be better, but since they are requiring me to have those set of questions answered and back in their
hands by this Thursday, I thought it best, for him to come on out and get this part of the investigation
out of the way and get a few more of my questions answered as well.  He agreed and we spent more than
2 hours getting soaking wet, but basically got most of the issues settled and out of the way.  He did reserve
a couple things that he has to go back to the office and study up on to make sure that we can 'work around
that particular item', but I'm confident that we will be able to work everything out to an overall satisfaction on
BOTH sides.  And one of the issues of finding some means of crossing the stream was fixed as well.  I'd found an
on-line auction the other day and bid and won a set of (3) three heavy duty metal stands built out of 4.5" well pipe
that measure 36"wide x 18" tall x 16 feet long.  Thinking outside the box and needing a way to get my roadway across
the stream and down the combination berm which is used to keep the stream from invading the pond area, I decided that
using two (2) of these side-by-side, spaced 8-10 feet apart and then spanned between them with heavy planking, would
serve as a ready-made bridge.  He agreed and even showed me a place further upstream where the supporting posts on either
end, would be on more upland ground and not have any affect on the wetlands.  So a win-win on that issue.  Now to figure out
a way to get them into their final resting place.....fortunately, I've hired a acquaintence that has rented a mini-excavator for a month,
so that shouldn't be a problem.  That machine is awesome for doing things one can only dream of.   Not only can it dig dirt, but it can
also push it around and lift heavy items like bridge supports.  The third one, I plan on using as a means of getting out to my island -
as the shortest distance is a channel close to the mainland that is about 12 feet wide.  And I should be okay with a couple feet to
spare on each side; although, we might have to dig some postholes down and pour concrete footings for the posts to set on. 

All-in-all, I was happy with the meeting, the goals that need to be set and achieved and feel good that this can ALL be worked out satisfactorily.

[Deleted]

Sounds like it is going well but I would never trust the government until the last stamp is applied.

[Deleted]

And I don't know that I would trust them even then!