Pond Boss Forums POND CONSTRUCTION Renovating a Pond or Lake? existing pond legality

I ask that this please not get political but feel the information is worth considering both from the point of purchasing property with an existing pond or building a new pond.

Just make sure all your ducks are in a row.

pond ordered drained

I am thankful every day that I don't live in a "watershed state".

Here, we don't have to get any permissions to build small ponds (under 25 feet high dam) on owned property, provided the pond is not in a floodplain and that the spillway water enters the original drainage that it entered before building the pond before said water leaves the property the pond is on. (Not allowed to divert water onto a neighbor).

I wouldn't live in a "progressive" state even for a large sum of money. Simply not worth it to me.

The people in the linked article brought attention to themselves, by asking for another use. In some states, better to keep a low profile.

To the west of us are some watershed "districts". Some people came and gave some meetings encouraging our area to establish one. This was a number of years ago.

I liked the idea of a more controlled water flow into streams and rivers to prevent or reduce area flooding that we get with some of the large rain events here. That part sounded good.

But the more they talked, the less I liked the "fine print". Looked like a lot of restrictive property regulations were a stick that went along with any carrot provided. I was glad to see the issue get a cold shoulder from most property owners.

I think we are in the best position we could be in for private property rights and the reigning-in of the EPA going forward.

lol.......... Yeah, we are now in the leaning forward position. Just pray that Exxon Mobile is not stingy with the petroleum jelly.

I am hopeful that there will be some good things to come from this interesting turn of events. My personal issue with building additional ponds comes from the county surveyor and his desire for a bunch of studies that are too expensive to fund (and in my opinion silly under my circumstances). I doubt the desired regulatory effect will trickle down that far. I am a staunch environmentalist and cannot stand how regulation keeps some from personally funding activities that prevent agricultural runoff from reaching streams without the purification provided by impoundments. There seems to be no accountability for the environmental damage done by some government officials. Hopefully, I did not step over any lines for this forum.

I think this is more about growing pot than the pond. Without proof of water they can't have a pot farm. I can't grow pot here in Texas, but at least I can dig a pond where I want.

BrianL you may have nailed it. A lot of money growing pot, legal or not legal to grow depending on the state one lives in. He should have said he would sell it and not give it away. And then give an amount of tax dollars the county could reap from sales taxes from the sale. I find it sad that the government has been studying pot at least back to the 1960's (when I looked into such things back then) and still has found little when it comes to such things a brain damage or any other damage. Unless they feed a rat or mouse a ton of it per day. Today they discuss heavy THC amounts, I can tell you there was some heavy weed back then Woops, I forgot to mention his pond and lmb.

First, I would file against the buying of the property on the grounds that the property was purchased on the fact the pond was there. Get the owners before to deal with it and find another property.

If it was my dream to own the property with a pond and it would have to be removed after the sale then I would have not bought the property.

Classic!

From the original article: http://www.mailtribune.com/news/20161220/couple-told-40-year-old-pond-near-butte-falls-is-illegal

"A 1925 state law dictates that the water belongs to the Medford Water Commission."

This is a local/state issue and any EPA reforms won't help this poor soul get his pot-growing permit.

So they purchased land with a pond built without appropriate local permits - therefore inherited an illegally constructed pond? Am I missing something? Didn't this guy speak at a PB Conference a while back?

TJ,

I think this is a different group of people.

TJ, that's what I'm getting, too.

It looks like they bought land with a pond that had been illegally constructed in the 70's as forbidden by the 1925 law. The local water use commission didn't care until the new owners applied for pot growing permits that specify where they'll get the irrigation water.

Bocomo, the guy's desire to grow pot and just 'give it to friends' doesn't really help his case, but when you run into state level problems, and if you're going for the long fight, it has to get elevated out of the state. I do want to state for the record that I am an advocate of state's rights; however, when a state official goes 'rogue,' one needs an avenue to get relief (reference those bakers who didn't want to bake a cake for the gay wedding; in that case the state official was tainted).

In this specific case, I don't really have a side. I do find it odd that the pond was there for close to a decade with no 'official' trying to drain it. Maybe there was a relationship or payoff happening between the old owner and the local gov't.

I missed where it said the pond was constructed in the '70s. To me, that would make it very difficult to conclusively prove that it was built illegally.

In the original article it says that the pond was built in the 70's without seeking the permits required by the law passed in 1925.

Bocomo, thanks.

Again, I would really have to wonder why the pond was allowed to remain for maybe (4) decades if it was conclusively illegal.

I think they ignored it until they applied for the permit. Why there's no reasonable statute of limitations or grandfather clause, I don't know.

If a pond requires permits for construction, and lacks them, it exists out of legal compliance. You'd think the state might allow them to request a permit after the fact to play nice, but ultimately I don't understand what all the fuss is about. If I purchase land where a fence is built on a neighbors property [I'm unaware at the time of purchase] it would remain my responsibility to remove it at the neighbors request should they eventually do so. It would suck, but it's an inherent risk of a buyer. I'm apparently missing something here. I mean, it sucks he lost his ponds, but what did the state do except enforce regulations?

That sounds feasible. A NE guy I know had the state visit for one reason or another and during their visit they suspected his new outbuilding was set too close to his property line [60' minimum he was at 50'] and they called state folks who handled such issues and you know the rest of the story. That's a case where involving authorities ended up causing him major issues on an unrelated subject. You'd think the professionals who constructed the building wouldn't be ignorant of regs like this and would have measured prior to project launch - but ultimately it's the responsibility of the landowner I guess.

Deleted John's post in hopes to keep this discussion in bounds of forum protocol - all please refrain from making political or geographical generalizations. That's the type of comment that typically sends these posts spinning into unproductive discussion. Sorry John.

In PA, I think there at least used to be some law that favored actual practice over property lines, IIRC.

Something like..if you let a family cross your property as a regular practice for some amount of time, you couldn't then just cut off that privilege.

I could be way wrong on that though.

Seems to me, the angle of the article is the suggested unreasonable response by the local water commission, especially after what appears to be cooperation by the land owners, but the water commission is afraid of the precedent it would set if they were to be flexible. This precedent is apparently more valuable to them than being viewed favorably by the community they serve. That’s a shame, but there’s probably more to the story we’re not privy to.

And if they only recently discovered satellite imagery, these guys are in for a lot of surprises.

That's OK, TJ. I think it's best to try to stay under the radar. If the guy hadn't applied for the second permit, in all likelihood, things would still be the same as when he purchased. Nevertheless, I think water rights laws in some states are probably unconstitutional.