“SB 926 Wetlands; governmental activity. 01/31/13 Senate: Stricken at request of Patron in Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources”

From Virginia’s LIS:

YEAS–Hanger, Watkins, Puckett, Ruff, McEachin, Petersen, Northam, Marsden, Black, Miller–10.

NAYS–0.

ABSTENTIONS–0.

Thank you.

Members of the Senate Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources:

Special thanks to Senator Jeffrey L. McWaters Republican-District 8 for requesting SB926 to be stricken.

Senator Jeffrey L. McWaters Republican-District 8

Senator Jeffrey L. McWaters Republican-District 8

One thought on ““SB 926 Wetlands; governmental activity. 01/31/13 Senate: Stricken at request of Patron in Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources”

  1. I would like to publicly commend and thank the Honorable Senator Jeff McWaters for this prompt consideration to revoke / strike the proposed amendment(s) to SB 926. A sincere “Thank You” Senator McWaters for your representing our voice as well as that of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which is also in direct opposition to the proposal put forward by a City official. This decision averted what I personally view as an agenda with incongruous intent.

    If properly interpreted, this proposed language would have significantly modified local wetlands board and other opportunities to hear the voice of the people on actions of government on OUR wetlands. Perhaps this will promote City officials to TRULY be more “transparent”, as quoted of one City official, in the conduct of or intent regarding furthering the agenda of SSD and the implicatons of same.

    I recently received a City letterhead notification of work being conducted for review of interim solutions to flooding in Lynnhaven Colony and Cape Henry Shores, of which I am grateful after all of these years, that indicate the appropriate willingness of the City to communicate intent via correspondence to persons affected.

    Perhaps in my ignorance, what I find inordinately perplexing is how something as significant as modifying the language of Commonwealth Regulatory law [related to wetlands zoning] would be proposed to resolve purported conflicts of existing wetlands zoning ordinance “antiquated” language and recently developed SSD language. One would think that those developing language for new [SSD] laws that specifically affect any existing [wetlands zoning] laws would consult and determine the appropriate language to avoid said purported conflicts at that point in the process. I would just like to understand, perhaps in a letter of explanation. I would prefer to not allow my imagination to run awry and manifest some theory that our tax-paid city official may be attempting to manipulate the law to remove requirements that currently hold them accountable to those that pay the salaries… one needs to keep their imaginations in a CHECKS AND BALANCES perspective. Don’t Tread On Me…

Discuss

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s