Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations The feds want to control your pond!

The Clean Water Act is being interpreted as broadly as possible by many people with vested interests. They are using it in Illinois to push unreasonable septic system regulations through the legislature. If they keep getting by with it in one area, they will try other areas. Not only do we not need any legislation broadening it, we need some good legislation which greatly restricts the scope of the Clean Water Act.

I'm getting ready to head out of town for a few days, but I'll be contacting my two U.S. Senators offices later this week to see where they stand on this issue.

I'll report back what I find out.

This is an incredibly complex issue with more aspects than most of us mortals can even begin to envision.

My pond is probably considered "Interstate Waters" since my pond and property are in West Virginia, but most of my watershed is in Virginia -- my eastern property line is also the state line.

The language in the proposed bill scares the heck out of me. I especially fear "striking 'navigable waters . . .' " from the definitions. My current pond, and a smaller wildlife pond are in pasture watershed, but I also have "navigable water" elsewhere on my property, even though the stream is dry about 4-5 months during most years. It is in an area where I plan to excavate my next pond.

But, I do not think this bill has a chance of getting out of committee the way it is worded -- that is where we may have some influence.

On the other side of things, we have rampant water pollution problems in my area that have devastated sport fishing in public waters. Suburban sprawl with its many issues, and factory farms with massive manure and hormone seepage are just a few of the water issues that must be dealt with. Stupidity and bureaucracy on the enforcement side must also be dealt with somehow.

As private water managers, we not only need a voice, but we a level head who can report from Washington.

I also think we need to start another thread on this issue with suggested typical letters we will be sending to our congressional representatives. We also need to find out who is on the committee that will be reviewing this proposed bill, and we need to really plaster those representatives with e-mails. They don't necessarily have to be your representative -- we just need to get our views to all of them. The letters must be very to-the-point, and we can't sound like crackpots.

Anybody want to be a lobbyist?

I'm going to take the first step with a few calls when I'm back in the office tomorrow.

Here are the new COE /EPA guidlines. I think these are way beyond what the Court had in mind. They are far less than what is in the Bill CB1 pointed out.

June 5, 2007 Clean Water Act Jurisdiction

Clean Water Act Jurisdiction

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision

in

Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States

This memorandum provides guidance to EPA regions and U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers ["Corps"] districts implementing the Supreme Court’s decision in the

consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States1 (herein

referred to simply as "Rapanos") which address the jurisdiction over waters of the United

States under the Clean Water Act.2 The chart below summarizes the key points contained

in this memorandum. This reference tool is not a substitute for the more complete

discussion of issues and guidance furnished throughout the memorandum.

1 126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006).

2 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.

Summary of Key Points

The agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following waters:

• Traditional navigable waters

• Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters

• Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent

where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least

seasonally (e.g., typically three months)

• Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries

The agencies will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact-specific analysis to

determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water:

• Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent

• Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent

• Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non-navigable

tributary

The agencies generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features:

• Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume,

infrequent, or short duration flow)

• Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and

that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water

The agencies will apply the significant nexus standard as follows:

• A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the

tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to

determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of

downstream traditional navigable waters

• Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors


http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/cwa_guide/cwa_guide.htm

Any updates on this?

Basically same info as Ewest provided...

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/CWAwaters.html

It isn't only the Feds.

West Virginia has claimed most of the water in the state for itself.

The Summer 2007 West Virginia Extension Service "Fish Tales" news letter has some scary information about what West Virginia has done. I can only assume that other states have done the same thing.

I was quite surprised a few months ago to find that my pond, and the usually dry watershed that feeds it, are shown as "navigable water ways" on the county tax map.

I've got some contacts in DC. I'll call them tomorrow and try to get an update...

As a former senate staffer, I can tell you that letters and phone calls are actually very effective -- just keep it simple, know all of the facts, and keep your cool. The only thing that members worry about more than the number of daily "issue calls & letters" they receive is whether their daily press releases have been picked up by the news outlets in their district or state.