And I do agree with Paul, it was an excellent seminar, a lot of very good information, and again cudos to Dick Widera

Ya and that guy gets to bury it 24 inches.

I know that if you bury it too deep the worms all come up out of the ground...

There's no doubt CMP 5 has discussed the matter as there has been not less than 3 proposals to add a burial depth to GEC's over the last 3 code cycles.

A member of my Division, Bill Pancake, is a member of CMP 5. I asked him what CMP 5's problem is with making a burial depth rule. He said that the CMP's generally do not like to mandate specific rules for "protection from damage" matters as they are generally case specific and need to be addressed by the AHJ for the specific installation.

On another subject, Bill has not been able to explain why GEC's are not required to be a certain color if insulated or covered. But that is a discussion for another topic.

Bryan, thank you for that update. Here is my comment:

Hogwash. I know the pancake man and I have the utmost respect for him. I have always liked him. But it is high time that the CMP's clarify the issue!! PINE BARK AND CYPRESS MULCH DOES NOT PREVENT PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO THE GROUNDING ELECTRODE CONDUCTOR!! PERIOD. If you see Bill, please congratulate him on his seat on the CMP, and please remind him that my contact info is at www.florida-building-code-expert.com in case he wants an earful, and to talk about things past.

I think that was the main point John Minnick was trying to make, let the AHJ make the call.

I like the mulch statement. Good for termites though.

But what if you put down gravel or marble chips. Very hard to dig in.

On a serious note though.
It seems we have come full circle.
Many years past most unclear items were left to the AHJ for interpretation.
Which also led to litigation.
Then over the years more clarification was added to the code.
Which leads to more AHJ interpretation.
I for one am curious as to what justifies (needs clarification meaning a code change) and what deems to be left to the AHJ having authority.

Just seems to me the panels spend an enormous amount of time to make clarifications which in the end cause more interpretation in the field by the AHJ.

I guess the problem is 250.64(B) "... A 4 AWG or larger copper or aluminum grounding electrode conductor shall be protected where exposed to physical damage..."

NFPA has always been vague about what "exposed to physical damage" really means.
I would think, being below the sod, against the wall is less "exposed" than running up from the dirt, strapped to the building.

Exactly.