Riparian Rules Gone Wild

Let’s talk about something absolutely ridiculous: the rules around riparian zones in British Columbia.

So what is a riparian zone? Supposedly, it’s the area around a stream or watercourse that needs to be protected. In theory, fine. But in practice? Half the time, it’s not even a stream. It might have been a trickle for two months in the spring—or not for ten years. Sometimes it’s just a shallow dip in the ground, barely wetter than the land around it. But because someone decided to mark it on a map, suddenly it’s a protected area.

And when you go to build? You’re told you have to stay at least 100 feet back from it. Want to get any closer, or move equipment near it during construction? Then you’re required to pay for an environmental monitor—someone who literally sits in their truck and watches your site. That’s their job. They watch. And you pay.

It’s red tape at its worst. No benefit to the environment, no practical value, just cost. Maybe in rare cases—like when you’re near a legitimate, fish-bearing stream—it makes sense. Sure, protect that. But in these nothing-zones with no water, no wildlife, and no reason? It’s pointless.

I’ve seen this over and over again: people trying to build responsibly, on their own land, and getting buried under rules that don’t make sense. These regulations don’t just slow things down—they make building way more expensive than it needs to be.

This kind of stuff needs to change. Less regulation, more common sense. It would save landowners a ton of money and time, and still protect the places that actually matter.