I am considering purchasing a piece of property and have been investigating the possibility of building a pond.

I had my topo map and soil survey ready when I met with the county NRCS agent. The creek bed only flows when it rains, but is is a blue line stream on the map. He saw that 2.2 acres of the soil where I would like to build the pond is Melvin soil. Apparently this is a hydric? soil which mean this location is likely classified as a wetland.

What are my options here? Does this mean I won't be able to legally build a pond?

Aby, welcome to the site. Seems ta me that is a ? the agent should have answered for ya.

Thank you sir. The NRCS agent is researching the matter for me, but he didn't sound hopeful.

I have been trying to do my own research. I believe farm ponds are exempt from state environmental regulation in TN, but I will still have to deal with the Corps of Engineers if it is indeed a wetland.

The NRCS man warned me not to talk to the state environmental agency because it would put me on their radar. How should I go about determining if the site in question is a wetland?

I don't have an answer for you but sometimes this stuff is crazy. In my case I considered building a wild life pond with the state helping with the expense. It could be only 7 feet deep but some of the cost would be paid by the state. A half dozen farmers that somehow was on the permission board came out and looked, and with me even pleading said NO. So at my expense I took 5 1/2 acres out of my field and built what they rejected but 10 feet deep instead of 7. I ditched a rout to drain the water from one field to support another smaller pond besides my main one and planted the whole area into a kind of preserve for wild life. So I built what they denied me at my expense and added a wetland wildlife to the states wildlife area's.

I built 2 of my wetlands after being told the soil would not hold water. They actually support fish and have been pretty wet for about a decade. I gave up on getting financial support from Indiana. I do have a beautiful wetland that INDOT built as a mitigation for one that they destroyed. I have a second one near that one that they built rather than be accepting payment for the first one.

Aby, you're new here and from the south so I understand your politeness. However as you continue to visit it will become obvious that I am certainly not a sir.

The new "Waters of the United States Rule" which goes into affect Aug 28, 2015 will greatly expand EPA/Corps of Engineers' control of waters under the Clean Waters Act. The rule allows a very broad interpretation of all waters that might be considered possible or potential tributaries to wetland areas. 22 states are contesting this new rule in court.

I could say so many things here, so I will say it sucks "it just sucks" how the epa can over reach

Tracy

This rule will only help the Republican party get elected to more public offices, whether defeated or not in court. Now all they need are candidates that advocate for positions supported by science. BTW - I am an independent.

The really dangerous thing about the EPA to an individual land owner is they can send you a determination of violation several years after the fact. A person may not know he has done anything wrong for several years. Then if they want to make an example out of you, the fines can be many thousands of dollars a day for every day the project is in violation of the law. Might as well hand them the key to the place if they really want to push all the fines they have the authority to administer.

By crucifying an occasional person, they use fear tactics to keep everyone else afraid to do anything with their property.

They have way too broad authority, way too much power, and an individual rarely has the power or deep pockets to fight them even when the landowner is in the right.

Determinations of being out of compliance with the law can come from aerial photographs without an agent even visiting with the landowner. Then it is guilty until proven innocent.

They need their budget cut about 80 percent. The only way to kill a beast that big is to starve it.

"Can", or have???

Have. Numerous times. It hits the news services occasionally. If it is a big enough stink organizations supporting property rights get involved, sometimes legislators, to get the EPA to back down. Then it happens again at some later point. Been watching it happen for a number of years.

If you want examples there are quite plenty enough, but this probably not the proper place to go down that road.

I don't want to clutter up this pond forum with lots of examples sprkplug, but if you are really interested just do a google search with something like "EPA fines small property owner for violations" and it will get you started. Keep in mind all that will come up likely are the ones that fetch national attention. Many of the ones that get settled are never contested and no one but maybe the neighbors hear about them.

I have, back when this first came up. No worries.

snrub I agree. The fact of the matter is, most everything this administration has done is an over reach. I could name many, but like you said, this may not be the place.

Tracy