The public comment phase of the new EPA regulations that will basically give the EPA control of ANY water, ANYWHERE and in ANY form has been opened. If you want to voice your opinion and or concerns, do so here...
Proposed EPA Regulation change redifining the Clean Water Act jurisdiction of control All pond owners, past, present, and future should post there comments and concerns on the again proposed land control grab wanted by the EPA. Under the guise of protecting water, the EPA wants to control, and regulate all rainwater, ponds, ditches, low spots that pool in a rain, etc!
There has been a very public case recently of the EPA's ability to unilaterally, by decree, decide they have jurisdiction over any property they wish, and currently, unless you are sued by the EPA to collect fines levied (up to $70,000/day) you have no legal recourse to protect your rights. The supreme court ruled this violates due process, but the EPA declared the ruling applies to that individual case only and all other decrees are valid (and can not be appealed in any court).
If these rule changes are made, we will likely lose all control over our private ponds, groundwater, watersheds, ditches, even home rooftops and gutters!
Here is the key phrasing the EPA wants, in order to essentially give itself absolute control over any water it deems to be "other", and emphasizes it NEED NOT be connected to any traditional navigable waterway...
The agencies propose to define “waters of the United States” in section (a) of the proposed rule for all sections of the CWA to mean: Traditional navigable waters; interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; the territorial seas; impoundments of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, including interstate wetlands, the territorial seas, and tributaries, as defined, of such waters; tributaries, as defined, of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, (1) or the territorial seas;and adjacent waters, including adjacent wetlands. Waters in these categories would be jurisdictional “waters of the United States” by rule—no additional analysis would be required. The agencies emphasize that the categorical finding of jurisdiction for tributaries and adjacent waters was not based on the mere connection of a water body to downstream waters, but rather a determination that the nexus, alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, is significant based on data, science, the CWA, and caselaw.
In addition, the agencies propose that “other waters” (those not fitting in any of the above categories) could be determined to be “waters of the United States” through a case-specific showing that, either alone or in combination with similarly situated “other waters” in the region, they have a “significant nexus” to a traditional navigable water, interstate water, or the territorial seas. The rule would also offer a definition of significant nexus and explain how similarly situated “other waters” in the region should be identified.
