Prossible New Changes to the once dead SB926

SB926 at SDCC.info previously.

Newest info follows below

Line 98 proposed changes:

Line 98: 10. Governmental activity in wetlands owned or leased or within an easement held by the Commonwealth or a subdivision thereof or in wetlands subject to a local government approved neighborhood navigation dredging project within a special services district adopted by the local governing body in accordance with 15.2-2400, et seq., of the Code of Virginia (“SSD Neighborhood Dredging Project”). Notwithstanding any provision in this chapter to the contrary, any such special service district neighborhood dredging project SSD Neighborhood Dredging Project shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission rather than the local wetlands board, if any. In exercising its jurisdiction over neighborhood dredging projects, the Commission shall process permit applications in accordance with the provisions of the this chapter and the applicable wetlands zoning ordinance, if any, and shall provide an opportunity for public comment.

 

Previous 2013 Virginia Beach Legislative Agenda Wording

 

Link to Previous 2013 version of SB926 as Introduced

SENATE BILL NO. 926
Offered January 9, 2013
Prefiled January 7, 2013
13100867D
A BILL to amend and reenact § 28.2-1302 of the Code of Virginia, relating to the jurisdiction of local wetlands boards.
–––––––––– Patron––McWaters
––––––––––
Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources
––––––––––

2013 SB  926 Wetlands; governmental activity.

01/31/13  Senate: Stricken at request of Patron in Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources (10-Y )


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

NAYS–0.

ABSTENTIONS–0.

5 thoughts on “Prossible New Changes to the once dead SB926

  1. I’d like to know just what the City and McWaters are thinking????

    There is no reason that government bodies should not have to undergo the same review regarding activity in wetlands required of any citizen. In fact, if any change is made to the ordinance, it should be to remove exception10 altogether, so government bodies are likewise required to undergo wetlands board review even on land owned or leased by the Commonwealth, or a political subdivision thereof.

    Wetlands provide valuable ecological services that local, state and federal agencies have spent millions (maybe billions) to protect and restore. The proposed language could have unintended consequences and open the door to unscrupulous activity that would further their decline.

    Looking for a Response,
    Carol Brighton

  2. We have the understanding that McWaters is not carrying the bill and that the VB councilmen sponsoring this bill are seeking another Senator to carry it. Last time the bill moved forward without the public knowing and was put in the VB Council Legislative Package. It went to the General Assembly with no comments, appearing to be without opposition. Once the environmental and neighborhood organizations & individuals spread the word – within a few hours, Senator McWaters had received over 150 emails in opposition and the bill was pulled. This bill bypasses the individuals voice to be heard (for or against a project) and the vast power it gives the government is endless.

    Passing this bill has much broader consequences and opens a path for less individual rights and protections currently in place.

    Spread the word – this time, VB Council must hear your voice. They are working on the legislative package now and it is supposed to go for a vote in an October City Council meeting to move up to the General Assembly in January.

  3. Rumor has it that they are looking to Senator Frank Wagner to carry the bill. If that is the case, it’s going to take more than a public outcry, in my opinion.

  4. Unfortunately, many of us have seen the way opposing “public comment” is handled by some commissions in this city, specifically the Beaches and Waterways Advisory Commission. When the Neighborhood Dredging (Spoils) Program (NDP) was being discussed two years ago, our well founded objections and opposing public comments were not permitted nor recorded at the scheduled B&WAC meetings. At the ONE and ONLY Public Hearing that was scheduled for us to express our opposition, over 200 people showed up. Of the speakers that were signed up, 19 opposed and only 1 supported the NDP. The questions that we all raised have never been sufficiently addressed nor answered by either the B&WAC commission or the City Council. I would expect only the same disingenuous treatment from the city and misrepresentation if SB926 were to pass. I believe that some in Virginia Beach city government want an unobstructed way with the Neighborhood Dredging Program for their own personal reasons. The city is putting up a lot of effort to get this expanded SB926 submitted and approved. Why? The city knows that they cannot standup to neighborhood objections and Wetlands Board scrutiny. I can only hope that when the citizens of VB have an opportunity to address the new SB926, that City Council will acknowledge and strongly consider our opposition. Consider that many channel areas of the Lynnhaven estuary need to be dredged, but it has to be done responsibly with minimal damage to the environment and the neighborhoods. If SB926 passes as presently written, Wetlands board review and our objections will be ignored.

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