Marsh rules debated again

by Mary Landers
February 6, 2007

The meeting: State Department of Natural Resources officials Tuesday discussed the latest revisions to Marsh Act rules at a meeting in Savannah. In part, the rules propose leaving a 50-foot-wide swath of natural vegetation around parking lots, bathrooms and other amenities directly associated with marinas and community docks. That buffer is twice as wide as what was proposed initially but half of what many scientists consider ideal for keeping pollutants from seeping into the marsh.

Three main points of view: Conservationists applauded the wider buffer but opposed the rule changes in general, saying they weaken the Marsh Act. Courts repeatedly have interpreted the act broadly, giving DNR broad authority to consider effects on the marshland of an entire development, not just the part that sits in the marsh.

James Holland, of the Altamaha Riverkeeper, called for a 50-foot buffer along the entire marsh. Polluted runoff threatens innumerable creatures that use the marsh as a nursery, said Holland, a former crabber.

"One gallon of gasoline will create a fish kill larger than man can comprehend," he said.

Many developers favor the rules, saying they need consistent and predictable guidelines.

Joe Tanner, a former DNR commissioner, spoke for Georgians for Responsible Coastal Development, a group composed largely of development interests. The rules provide the first-ever Marsh Act guidance on buffers, storm water, and how much land area can be paved near the marsh, he said.

But conservationists counter that the rules provide too many loopholes with the use of verbiage such as "to the extent practicable."

"What if Moses had said, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery to the extent practicable'?" asked David Kyler, executive director of the Center for a Sustainable Coast.

About a dozen property rights proponents attended the meeting. They protested any buffer as a government taking.

Laura Roberts, an attorney from Brunswick who represents the 200-member Citizens for Private Property Rights, questioned the legality of increasing the buffer from 25 to 50 feet.

" 'Reasonable' has to be balanced with all the interests concerned, not just protection of the marsh," she said.

What's next: The proposed rule is to be considered Feb. 27 by a Board of Natural Resources subcommittee, then by the full board on Feb. 28 in Atlanta.

Written comments will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. Friday. Submit them to the attention of Joani Crosby; Coastal Resources Division; One Conservation Way, Suite 300; Brunswick, GA 31520-8687