ewest. I agree especially when we are talking about the impacts coming from a pond or lake construction. My personal opinion is that impoundments and ponds constructed on headwater streams can serve a vital role in downstream water quality. They trap sediment and nutrients and either stores it or releases it into the downstream waters more gradually. When these types of structures are built with a combination of vegetated forbays the nutrient reduction is even more. Also flood control.

Believe me I work in this area of Clean Water Act 404 permitting, and some of the regulations don't have a lick of common sense to them. And unfortunately many of the regulators lack common sense as well even though there is alot of flexibility in what they can allow with over burdening the indivdual. I will say the COE rep that UpaTree will deal with is good. He regulates as the CWA was intended to be implemented.

For the record, the cost of mitigation is not a "fee" that goes to the government. Most Army Corps permits don't have any fee associated with them. The payment for mitigation is typically to a private wetland bank.

Also keep in mind that alot of states do not have a permit program for impacting wetlands, so what I've said is strictly related to Virginia. In those other states, you can legally excavate in a wetland to create a groundwater driven pond. This type of wetland impact was successfully challenge in the courts and the courts said that since it is not "discharging dredge material" into the wetland it is outside of the COE/EPA Clean Water Act juridiction. This was the Tulloch case. Also, if the wetland is truly isolated or the wetland and/or stream is determined to be non-jurisdictional (this can be time consuming), then you are free to do whatever you want to it.