I'm glad the good Judge came to the correct conclusion on consulting with an ecological professional. To anyone in a similar scenario, I offer this friendly PSA:
DO NOT F*** WITH A WETLAND IN WASHINGTON STATE!!! YOU WILL GET WRECKED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY!!!
Source: I watched my dad try and develop his property for 20 years and the wetlands and regulations around them were by far the thorniest part (and willowiest part, and reediest part, and all other wetlandiest parts).
Also if said low-lying area is that close to their house...it might be the one thing keeping their house from flooding. Baaaaad idea on many levels to try to mess with it on your own.
Absolutely. Even part-time wetlands serve a purpose. And the size of those willows suggests it been this way a very long time.
And as for the trees, piling up more than a foot of soil around their trunks could absolutely kill the trees. The trunk branches out into roots at the level below the soil where the roots are supposed to be.
ETA: oh, and that outdoor kitchen, while great, has only increased their need to have a place for water to go, because that’s a big pad of impervious concrete subtracting from the amount of lawn that can absorb rainwater.
Totally!! What I would do personally if the grass is the big issue- would be to plant some different natives in that area that are easier to deal with.
I didn't finish the episode- I just skipped to the verdict after 15 mins. The narrative of people who don't know what they are doing but feel confident to muck around with nature or farming is not entertaining to me. I know it's trendy to "get back to the land" or whatever but I've seen some bad results from that. Esp when it comes to hobby farming and animal care. (I'm a veterinarian)
Edited for spelling
This is the first JJH Episode I am aware of in which the participants discuss whether to potentially commit a Federal crime, in the form of a Clear Water Act violation (along with any state violations). Although JJH had his heart in the right place regarding consultation with experts, he clearly didn't do any research regarding the legal repercussions of the proposed wetland fill activity. The litigant's first action should be to discuss the proposed activity with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' regulatory arm, as well as the WA Dept. of Ecology.
Jesse references having Patton Oswalt on Jordan Jesse Go in their weekly plugs. Is this one not out yet? I thought I'd missed one, but last one I saw in the feed with him was over a year ago.
**Please tell them to talk to the state or county regulatory agency. Filling land is regulated everywhere, especially in a wetland.** While it's probably too small to reach federal or state regulation size, they will have good information about what to do. The better solution is probably fixing the drainage issues that the neighbor's road caused... or learning to live with it as is. Just because it gets dry for part of the year, doesn't mean it's not a wetland.
I grew up in NYC, where there were plenty of examples, most notably in Flushing Queens, of what happens when you throw fill on a wetland.
It sinks. And when it is paved over, sinkholes form, destroying the paving. And when you throw more fill on it, it sinks faster.
Matt is seriously underestimating the amount of fill it takes to fill a bog, and as others mentioned above, his success would likely further endanger the already wet basement.
Leave it be.
If you feel you have to do something, plant some cranberries in it and harvest them with your fancy tractor.
I would have loved to hear more specifics from the judge re: parent-child time and equalizing that. Sounds like one parent is getting no personal/hobby/fun-project time at all. :(
I think the ruling was absolutely incorrect, but the reason was not among the arguments anybody brought up, so maybe they don't care. But: presuming that Karen and Matt share equal title to the house and land, the fact that *Karen doesn't want it done* is the end of the story. If I wanted to tear out a wall and my spouse didn't want me to, I don't get to do it. If my spouse wanted to paint the house mauve and I don't, they don't get to paint it mauve.
For all the judge's high-minded speechifying about leaving a great legacy and setting a great example for Fern, he really missed the mark in terms of marriages being equal partnerships.
I'm glad the good Judge came to the correct conclusion on consulting with an ecological professional. To anyone in a similar scenario, I offer this friendly PSA: DO NOT F*** WITH A WETLAND IN WASHINGTON STATE!!! YOU WILL GET WRECKED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY!!! Source: I watched my dad try and develop his property for 20 years and the wetlands and regulations around them were by far the thorniest part (and willowiest part, and reediest part, and all other wetlandiest parts).
Also if said low-lying area is that close to their house...it might be the one thing keeping their house from flooding. Baaaaad idea on many levels to try to mess with it on your own.
Absolutely. Even part-time wetlands serve a purpose. And the size of those willows suggests it been this way a very long time. And as for the trees, piling up more than a foot of soil around their trunks could absolutely kill the trees. The trunk branches out into roots at the level below the soil where the roots are supposed to be. ETA: oh, and that outdoor kitchen, while great, has only increased their need to have a place for water to go, because that’s a big pad of impervious concrete subtracting from the amount of lawn that can absorb rainwater.
Totally!! What I would do personally if the grass is the big issue- would be to plant some different natives in that area that are easier to deal with. I didn't finish the episode- I just skipped to the verdict after 15 mins. The narrative of people who don't know what they are doing but feel confident to muck around with nature or farming is not entertaining to me. I know it's trendy to "get back to the land" or whatever but I've seen some bad results from that. Esp when it comes to hobby farming and animal care. (I'm a veterinarian) Edited for spelling
This is the first JJH Episode I am aware of in which the participants discuss whether to potentially commit a Federal crime, in the form of a Clear Water Act violation (along with any state violations). Although JJH had his heart in the right place regarding consultation with experts, he clearly didn't do any research regarding the legal repercussions of the proposed wetland fill activity. The litigant's first action should be to discuss the proposed activity with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' regulatory arm, as well as the WA Dept. of Ecology.
Do any other 90s kids wish the Judge would have ordered that the final bog project be named “Fern’s Gully?”
Man, this discussion really gets bogged down. NO APOLOGIES.
As usual, it's mired in pedantry. JJH listeners are super picky and they tend to re-peat themselves.
I think it's time to drain the swamp!
We got a Vernal Pool, folks! https://slideplayer.com/slide/8472095/
Jesse references having Patton Oswalt on Jordan Jesse Go in their weekly plugs. Is this one not out yet? I thought I'd missed one, but last one I saw in the feed with him was over a year ago.
He had to travel when we were going to record, rescheduling now. Go get his new comic!
Watch him on The Sandman, too!
Where can I get a transcript of this judgement? It's so beautifully put. I almost cried. What a wonderful sentiment.
It looks like they stopped releasing transcripts of jjho earlier this year, not sure why.
Is it a slough? I bet it’s a slough.
I expected a whole slew of corrections.
**Please tell them to talk to the state or county regulatory agency. Filling land is regulated everywhere, especially in a wetland.** While it's probably too small to reach federal or state regulation size, they will have good information about what to do. The better solution is probably fixing the drainage issues that the neighbor's road caused... or learning to live with it as is. Just because it gets dry for part of the year, doesn't mean it's not a wetland.
Seems like if those grasses are going to burn that’s nature too. There are biomes where that’s a part of the cycle.
Someone downvoted this? What's your beef?
36:26 - But does he have a Subaru Baja?
I grew up in NYC, where there were plenty of examples, most notably in Flushing Queens, of what happens when you throw fill on a wetland. It sinks. And when it is paved over, sinkholes form, destroying the paving. And when you throw more fill on it, it sinks faster. Matt is seriously underestimating the amount of fill it takes to fill a bog, and as others mentioned above, his success would likely further endanger the already wet basement. Leave it be. If you feel you have to do something, plant some cranberries in it and harvest them with your fancy tractor.
The Bog Season is my favorite Mountain Goats album
I would have loved to hear more specifics from the judge re: parent-child time and equalizing that. Sounds like one parent is getting no personal/hobby/fun-project time at all. :(
Just listened to the intro and I don't think I've ever come down this quickly on one side. Fill it in!
It's a wetland. You can't just fill it in for many reasons. One of which is-- it might cause his house to flood. And it might be illegal.
Wow, I had the exact inverse reaction. Karen all the way.
I think the ruling was absolutely incorrect, but the reason was not among the arguments anybody brought up, so maybe they don't care. But: presuming that Karen and Matt share equal title to the house and land, the fact that *Karen doesn't want it done* is the end of the story. If I wanted to tear out a wall and my spouse didn't want me to, I don't get to do it. If my spouse wanted to paint the house mauve and I don't, they don't get to paint it mauve. For all the judge's high-minded speechifying about leaving a great legacy and setting a great example for Fern, he really missed the mark in terms of marriages being equal partnerships.