From “Roughing It,” by Mark Twain

I remember one of those sorrowful farces, in Virginia which we call a jury trial. A noted desperado killed Mr. B., a good citizen, in the most wanton and cold-blooded way. Of course the papers were full of it, and all men capable of reading read about it. And of course all men not deaf and dumb and idiotic talked about it. A jury list was made out, and Mr. B.L., a prominent banker and a valued citizen, was questioned precisely as he would have been questioned in any court in America:
“Have you heard of this homicide?”
“Yes.”
“Have you held conversations upon the subject?’
“Yes.”
“Have you formed or expressed opinions about it?”
“Yes.”
“Have you read the newspaper accounts of it?”
“Yes.”
“We do not want you.”
A minister, intelligent, esteemed, and greatly respected; a merchant of high character and known probity; a mining superintendent of intelligence and unblemished reputation; a quartz-mill owner of excellent standing, were all questioned in the same way, and all set aside. Each said the public talk and the newspaper reports had not so biased his mind but that sworn testimony would overthrow his previously formed opinion and enable him to render a verdict without prejudice and in accordance with the facts. But of course, such men could not be trusted with the case. Ignoramuses alone could mete out unsullied justice.

When the peremptory challenges were all exhausted, a jury of twelve men was empaneled — a jury who swore they had neither heard, read, talked about, nor expressed an opinion concerning a murder which the very cattle in the corrals, the Indians in the sagebrush, and the stones in the streets were cognizant of! It was a jury composed of two desperadoes, two low beerhouse politicians, three barkeepers, two ranchmen who could not read, and three dull, stupid, human donkeys! It actually came out afterward that one of these latter thought that incest and arson were the same thing.

The verdict rendered by this jury was, Not Guilty. What else could one expect?

The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty, and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity, and perjury. It is a shame that we must continue to use a worthless system because it was good a thousand years ago. In this age, when a gentleman of high social standing, intelligence, and probity swears that testimony given under solemn oath will outweigh, with him, street talk and newspaper reports based upon mere hearsay, he is worth a hundred jurymen who will swear to their own ignorance and stupidity, and justice would be far safer in his hands than in theirs. Why could not the jury law be so altered as to give men of brains and honesty an equal chance with fools and miscreants? Is it right to show the present favoritism to one class of men and inflict a disability on another, in a land whose boast is that all its citizens are free and equal? I am a candidate for the legislature, I desire to tamper with the jury law. I wish to so alter it as to put a premium on intelligence and character, and close the jury box against idiots, backlogs, and people who do not read newspapers. But no doubt I shall be defeated — every effort I make to save the country “misses fire.”

Also, unfortunately, it depends a lot on who actually does the work to ‘fix’ the ‘problem’ (I put ‘fix’ and ‘problem’ in scare quotes, because these are not problems to be fixed from the perspective of the environmental agencies). If the county or state were to have cleared the blockages from that culvert, it’s likely that the agencies would have tut-tutted them, maybe even fined them one time, and then dropped it. Maybe they’d have required a future mitigation somewhere else, or even right there, but that would be the maximum extent of it. And in the context of a municipality or government agency, that’s a hardship, but not a huge one. But because this was a private owner, and they don’t really have much clout, they get put through the ringer.

PeeDub: That’s exactly how lots of wetlands have been created, intentionally and unintentionally. And they count just like ‘natural’ wetlands, most of the time.

If understand you correctly it is not a crime if the original state of the property is highlands (no wetlands). Then someone builds a drainage system adjacent to your property, and over time, due to poor maintenance the drainage system floods your property. (No crime here.)

it however is a crime if you then do the required maintenance on the drainage system, removing the floodwaters and then develop your land – which was originally highlands.

And if it does meet those criteria, then yes, the act of unblocking the drainage pipe and draining the surrounding areas was against the rules. It doesn’t matter why there was a wetland there. It obviously existed prior to their ownership of the land, and was removed by their actions. You can argue “Well, they just unblocked the pipe, they just cut a ditch, they just put in a pipe” when discussing wetland drainage, but they’re a reality that you have to work with.

But I will tell you that it is quite common for man-made drainage canals and ditches built by the government alongside roads to create wetlands on adjoining property.

The wetland wouldn’t be there if the government hadn’t built the ditch or maintained it properly, but that doesn’t matter once they classify your land as a wetland. You’re sunk.

Hmm, if only the case had been judged by a small group of random people with no connection to the government or the landowner. We could call them a “jury” perhaps. Then, in a perfect world, they would hear facts and information and testimony (we might call this “evidence”) and then they would sit and think about what they’d heard and decide who was right. If that happened, that might HELP us figure out what really happened. But, of course nothing like that happened here so I guess we will just have to toss a coin.

Aside from that, “free society” and “don’t put rocks on a wetland that YOU own or we will destroy your life unilaterally” go together like coffee and donuts.