As someone planning new ponds, I follow these developments:

https://www.centralmoinfo.com/2019/02/20/farm-bureau-reviewing-proposed-wotus-rewrite/

Hope others find it useful

Here is a summary of which ponds will be considered WOTUS. A big improvement.

https://www.farmprogress.com/commentary/what-lake-or-pond-under-new-wotus-proposal

OK, I read through those links and need some layman terms...I'm not up on the politics regarding our BOW's...What's this about?

At what point the gov't owns and controls a BOW....your pond

That's what I thought the big picture was, but I do not understand the jargon about what constitutes a WOTUS (gov't controlled pond).

This quote...

"In summary, any lake or pond susceptable to use in interstate or foreign commerce or subject to the ebb and flow of tide will be considered a lake or water under WOTUS.

Second, EPA says, “…lakes and ponds that contribute perennial or intermittent flow…in a typical year…would also be considered waters of the United States.” To interpret this section a landowner must also go back to consider the definitions set forth in 33 CFR Section 328.3. To further confuse a farmer or rancher, EPA and the Corps “…propose that lakes and ponds flooded by an (a)(1) – (5) water in a typical year would be waters of the United States. These lakes and ponds would receive flood waters from (a)(1) – (5) waters via overtopping in a typical year.”"

Translates in my brain to...

"Blah Blah Blah...Blah Blah Blah"

LOL

I need some help, obviously!

Based off what I could figure out, they are wanting to change it from BOW that is navigable to any BOW that fills and overflows in a normal year????

I liked my translation better!

What are we (U.S.A.) becoming?

Fills and overflows in a normal year FROM another WOTUS is I think the key.

So my ponds both fill from rainwater that flows off of fields. I get zero water from any other source. Based on the current description I should be retaining ownership and control of my ponds....at least right now.

But if your pond is downstream of a corps of engineers lake, for example, and when it comes a gully washer some water could move FROM that lake to your pond, you could be in trouble based on these new regs.

Same way if a creek that's full some/most of the time can flood out of it's banks and end up in your pond.

Etc.

Here's the really scary part: The next time (and there will be a next time, sadly) an administration hostile to private property rights comes to power, the language will be changed. Not in our favor.

On the plus side, if you can call it that, we won't waste our money feeding the government's fish, nor amending the government's water chemistry, nor doing surveys & corrective stocking for the government.

This goes both ways, and more importantly, if your Pond/BOW stops flow from entering a tributary that feeds into a Navigable stream, it will fall under their jurisdiction and "could" be subject to draining.
We are fighting this tooth and nail in Kansas, especially the western half where litigation has already taken place between adjoining states and their Governments.

I have not read the details, but I have a ditch that is fed by surface water only after rain, and also from a field tile. I read this as not being a WOTUS ditch under the new rule. Once this is adopted, my plan was to submit a request of the Army Core of Engineers for there evaluation of jurisdiction. If they agree it is not a WOTUS ditch, then at least building a pond in the ditch area would not be under federal oversight, but local restrictions may still apply. In fact, I wanted to build this pond several years ago to trap runoff from 80 acres of crop land before it reaches an EPA impaired creek, but government red tape had me divert funds to a large pole building. Now that building adds more water for runoff into the same EPA impaired creek. -- Unforeseen negative environmental impact from poorly prepared regulation!

Remove the word "environmental" and you have described Government to a "T".

Its all about some lefty in or around Washington who is a socialist like Berny that does not like the fact that we land owners have land and water and they don't. They call it environmental as a way to control our water, our land etc. Redistribution of wealth is what it's all about. It happens all around the world when the have nots take over governments. Here I go again, it's like when Obama said we that built our companies did not do it on our own. Sorry guys but I cant help my self sometimes, this just gets me started!

I must've missed this part....if that's the case then practically 100% of our ponds are going to become WOTUS...the only ones that won't are dug ponds that essentially HAVE no runoff. Because small creeks run to big creeks and big creeks run to rivers and rivers run to the ocean. That's sort of how that works.

“Ditches are generally proposed not to be ‘waters of the United States’ unless they meet certain criteria, such as functioning as traditional navigable waters, if they are constructed in a tributary and also satisfy the conditions of the proposed ‘tributary’ definition or if they are constructed in an adjacent wetland and also satisfy the conditions of the proposed ‘tributary’ definition,” the rule explained.

The rule also notes that waters of the U.S. do not include: features that flow only in response to precipitation; groundwater, including groundwater draining through subsurface drainage systems; certain ditches; prior converted cropland, and artificially irrigated areas that would revert to upland if artificial irrigation ceases.

https://www.feedstuffs.com/news/epa-releases-new-draft-wotus-rule

It's VERY different in many areas..
We have a few river systems out here that have not had natural flow for nearly 30 years. But if you dam up a runoff area that drains into that (still classified as a stream) you're in violation. The only way we can put a pond in in Western KS is "IF" it's less than 1 surface acre or less than 15 ac ft, not to exceed 1 surface acre. If you have an area where water flows downhill but does not flow into a tributary that feeds a Navigable stream (such as mine) you're good. Each water district in every state is different but the feds are trying to simplify the system and provide a blanket coverage answer.
This ruling is nothing new, I've been fighting the direction this has been headed for years, during permitting on renovation of an existing impoundment. I have 2 in the works right now and the only reason we've been able to continue is both earthen dam structures fall under low hazard/low impact class if they would potentially fail. Every district is going to be different in how it's handled but 90% of the ponds in western KS will NOT fall under WOTUS because they just flow into a lower spot and not a tributary.

Yup - This is just federal oversight and state and local regs are on top of this.