Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations getting around the government

well my first post was correct. great magazine. heres my questions and problems with my desire to start my pond this fall. I have been working with the local county nrcs office to help with the details of the damn. but it seems the corp of engineers have a lot of control over how big the pond can be, the uses of the pond and of course how much wet lands are going to be damaged in the course of building this damn/pond. i never realized the control the government has over the farmer/land owner. my question is- is there anyone out there who has built a pond without using it for agriculture use and was able to get approval in less than 2 years ( which is what my local agent is saying)? it seems that the corp does not like recreational type ponds. I would dearly like to talk to anyone who may help me get through this legal mess with the corp and nrcs office. thanks for any help. by the way if it goes as planned i'm looking at around a 7ac pond

Who says you need a 404 permit and why ?

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).

ewest, thanks for your quick reply and sorry my slow one!!! I do not have a great internet connection, so i dont stay too long on it.
i am not sure how the SC ruleing that was in your reply applys to me. i believe my location sooner or later empties into a river or ocean, which puts the Corp in control. I really do not want to get them on my bad side but for me to build this pond, i basically have to streach the truth in my intended use of it. i feel this is wrong and would like to do with my property what i want as long as it does not pose a danger or hurt any one else or damage any wetlands.
I would still like to know from anyone out there if their building of a lake was restricted by the corp of engineers. this magazine was started for the gathering of information on pond/lake uses. I cant get past the dirt moving problem.thanks

I was told in KY by the USDA that as long as the dam was not over 20 feet tall I could avoid the Corp Of Eng.. This was over a year ago so I am pretty sure this was their answer to my question, if my memory is not failing me. You may wan't to talk to your local USDA agent and double check. Also my pond is for non Ag use also.

Donnie

rcahow, there is a good bit of spirited discussion on several threads here about dealing with the ACoE. One or two threads do cover a lot of ground (can anyone give the links??)

My personal belief is that because you are dealing with a government agency, you should proceed through the channels set up for tax paying citizens when they have issues with government.

My next step (understanding that we only have the rough-out details of your situation) would be to make a phone call followed up with a nicely written letter to one of your US Senators. If you can confidently say that you voted for that Senator, that goes a long way.

Many times, all the Senator's office has to do is make a phone call or two, and things will flow from there.

I know there may be a lot of skepticism about my suggestions here, but until you've done it, you couldn't know how much it helps.

If I was in your situation, it would be exactly what I would do. Remember that the current President is an avid pond owner; & so should you.

I would search jersey in Pond Boss, he has a thread that goes on forever dealing with that very subject. Lots of information that you can use.
http://www.pondboss.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=002420#000003
That is a later one drop him, he has earlier ones that I do not have access to.