Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Core of engineers

Had a buddy talk with the Core of engineers and other agencies for over three hours the other day....

In essance he said if you try to build a lake on a parential stream FORGET IT!!! If the stream is parential you can get a permit for it. I gues this is the reason Iwas able to get a permit so easy for mine is because mine is a prential stream.
He said the reason was because so many people are building these things and is basicly increasing the evaporation of the water and causing trouble. When you build a lake, you increase the over all evaporation of water on the planet and the over all evaporation cause loss in the volume of water on the planet....go figure.
Also Now in the state of Georgia there is a new law passed not by the Core (feds) but by the state that is even STRICKTER ON THIS VERY ISSUE. So it look like there will be less than ever of ponds being built in Georgia for the sever water shortage we are having over here..

What I can't figure is why the core is cracking down on us building ponds and can't help the poor black people in New Orleans...leave us farmers alone and start help thoes in REAL NEED and fix that dam in New Orleans!!! What a WASTE this group is!!!

BP what was this guy smoking? Water that evaporates into the ski turns into rain. It don't really care if it's gets to the ocean or happens in your private pond. I read an article back in 2001 that municipal water agencies were pushing to get laws passed that would stop and or limit construction of all private ponds and lakes. The large cities say that we are reducing the amount of runoff in the watersheds that feed the larger reservoirs that the cities get there water from. Another words we are stealing there water. It’s the same old story who owns the water in this here valley? Yes private ponds cause more evaporation and more water is lost under ground to the water table. I believe this to be the real issue behind all this. I think this makes more sense than what the Core told your buddy.

Not sure how water volume on the world can change from some minor evaporation increase, if in fact it's even measurable.

Wouldn't more evaporation mean more rain someplace?

As for the Core of Engineers not rebuilding, maintaining or imporving the levy, they tried. Cinton increases spending for them to an all time high, and then Bush raised the amount even higher. They were stoped from doing anything by the environmentalist groups who took them to court everytime.

Eddie

What exactly is a parential stream? One that has other streams flowing into it?

It would take someone good with numbers who I really trusted to convince me that ponds increase evaporation, as opposed to lettting water run downstream unopposed (I must add that there are a large number of people at this forum who would qualify to do this). My pond, the creek downstream, the river below it, and the reservoir some municipality draws water from all have surfaces that evaporate water - IMO it would take a pretty extensive study to know which lost the most water based on depth, volume surface area, flow rates, and who knows what else that would affect evaporation (Temperature? Air flow? Where to stop???)

As far as complaining about surface water lost because it recharges underground aquifers - that's like complaining that someone is putting money in the bank. Everyone who uses a well for their water, including many municipalities, ought to be greatful for anyone who helps recharge ground water.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers is the governing body that oversees jurisdicational waters. Their enforcement of these streams and bodies of water is made possible through the Clean Water Act established over 25 years ago. The Clean Water Act established many laws to protect our streams, rivers, wetlands and lakes due to development, pollution and irresponsibility.

Although it may limit what we can do when it comes to our ponds and lakes, the laws are in place and we have to work within them.

However, just because a creek, stream or river is considered "jurisdicational" does not mean you aren't allowed to do anything with it. This is where Section 404 of the Clean Water Act allows for some nationwide permits that will permit you to make the changes according to the chapters that describe the work you are going to perform. Usually, the USACOE needs whats called a "pre-construction notification" if you are working within a nationwide permit. Otherwise, if you want to perform work outside of the limits set forth in the nationwide permit, you must file and request an individual permit which is costly and requires a good part of a year to perform.

BTW...it is not called "parential" streams. You mean "perennial astatic streams". There are two catagories to astatic (their surface levels fluctuate) bodies of water; seasonally static waters, which dry up annually and perennially astatic waters, whose levels rise and fall but do not dry up every year.

Just like their is a reason for speed limits -- not to spoil your fun of driving fast, but to protect you and your family from others wanting to drive fast. The USACOE enforces the laws of the Clean Water Act not to keep you from building ponds, but to protect the nation's ever-diminishing fresh water resource. Remember that surface water does not belong to us unlike ground water rights in many states.

My advice to clients where they want to build on or near a jurisdicational stream or creek...just build a little further up the hill. Look at it this way...you won't have to worry so much about sedimentation problems from upstream, because you have more control over your watershed when you build a pond or lake "off-stream".

Hope this helps clear up a little of the "muddy water" stirred up by this topic.

Is that legal advice I can take to court with me?

I think the US Sup. Court just let the Core know they were an out of control entity who wanted to exercise power over large parts of the country that was not given them.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
2006
RAPANOS ET UX., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES


http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1034.pdf

Isolated ponds are not “waters of the United States” in their own right, see SWANCC, supra, at 167, 171, and present no boundary-drawing problem justifying the invocation of such ecological factors. Thus, only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are “waters of the United States” in their own right, so that there is no clear demarcation between the two, are “adjacent” to such waters and covered by the Act.

In deciding whether to grant or deny a permit, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) exercises the discretion of an enlightened despot, relying on such factors as “economics,” “aesthetics,” “recreation,” and “in general, the needs and welfare of the people,”


In SWANCC, we considered the application of the Corps’ “Migratory Bird Rule” to “an abandoned sand and gravel pit in northern Illinois.” 531 U. S., at 162. Observing that “[i]t was the significant nexus between the wetlands and ‘navigable waters’ that informed our reading of the CWA in Riverside Bayview,” id., at 167 (emphasis added), we held that Riverside Bayview did not establish “that the jurisdiction of the Corps extends to ponds that are not adjacent to open water.” 531 U. S., at 168 (emphasis deleted). On the contrary, we held that “nonnavigable, isolated, intrastate waters,” id., at 171—which, unlike the wetlands at issue in Riverside Bayview, did not “actually abut] on a navigable waterway,” 531 U. S., at 167—were not included as “waters of the United States.”

In sum, on its only plausible interpretation, the phrase “the waters of the United States” includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water “forming geographic features” that are described in ordinary parlance as “streams[,] . . . oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.” See Webster’s Second 2882. The phrase does not include channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall. The Corps’ expansive interpretation of the “the waters of the United States” is thus not “based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843 (1984).
http://www.pondboss.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=002444;p=1

If the 6th Cir. and the Sup. Ct. are not sure about the Cores jurisdiction then how can any of us be.

BTW I think (lets hope) our private property rights are protected by the Constitution which trumps the CWA.

does anyone have any comment about putting "missouri crossings" in decent size creek?

a missouri crossing is to put concrete rubble in bottom of creek with banks sloped to bottom to allow access for equipment to the property on other side of creek.

these typically raise the upstream water level creating habitat, oxygenate the water as it drops in the rapids. it seems all good.

Cliff:

Doesn't seem to be a problem here in S.E. Iowa...it is done all the time. No permits...they just start shoving the rubble in. One place, the county was moving a gravel road and mangled up the low water crossing. They actually replaced it upstream about 50 yards, which I thought was pretty thoughtful of them.

That little pool always holds beaver and muskrats. I've also caught a few cats in my early years there. It's not over 30 inches deep, and the creek flows pretty much year round, but it's only a few inches deep. It does make a nice piece of habitat.

I think I'll just sit back and read for a while... :rolleyes:

Well said, Jersey.

Jersy,
I think you should make this line part of your sig. "the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) exercises the discretion of an enlightened despot"

I had to look up "despot".

"Despotism is government by a singular authority, either a single person or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute power. The word implies tyrannical rule; it suggests a form of government which exercises exacting and near-absolute control over all of its citizens.

Yep. That pretty much sums it up.