Pond Boss Forums GENERAL QUESTIONS Property Projects & Construction EPA/Legal experts?

I didn't have time to read the whole proposal last night - not enough time in the day as it's 297 pages long.

But, in the first 30 pages, what I saw was alarming to me. I can think of 2 people right off the bat who'd be affected by this proposal. Dwight and Fireishot.

Some snippets:

To provide that protection, the Supreme Court has consistently agreed that the geographic scope of the CWA reaches beyond waters that are navigable in fact. Peer-reviewed science and practical experience demonstrate that upstream waters, including headwaters and wetlands, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream waters by playing a crucial role in controlling sediment, filtering pollutants, reducing flooding, providing habitat for fish and other aquatic wildlife, and many other vital chemical, physical, and biological processes.

For instance, I believe FIH's pond is considered to be the headwaters of the Lake Fork River. Wouldn�t this affect his pond?
Part of the CWA is to further define what is to be considered �Waters of the United States�.

��Adjacent waters� include wetlands, ponds, lakes, oxbows, impoundments, and similar water features.�
�Waters located in whole or in part in the 100-year floodplain and that are within 1,500 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a traditional navigable water, interstate water, the territorial seas, an impoundment, or a tributary, as defined in the rule (�floodplain waters�).�

I believe this would affect Dwights pond.

I think there's another provision in there that says any water that is within 4,000 feet of any 100 yr. floodplain.

Here they are leaving the door open so (in my mind) ANY BOW could be considered part of the CWA.
�The agencies recognize that there are individual waters outside of the �neighboring� boundaries stated above where the science may demonstrate through a case-specific analysis that there exists a significant nexus to a downstream traditional navigable water, interstate water, or the territorial seas. However, these waters are not determined jurisdictional by rule and will be evaluated through a case-specific analysis.�

Could a pothole in the Midwestern prairie be considered a pond? Could a pond be considered a pothole? �In this final rule, the agencies have identified by rule, five specific types of waters in specific regions that science demonstrates should be subject to a significant nexus analysis and are considered similarly situated by rule because they function alike and are sufficiently close to function together in affecting downstream waters. These five types of waters are Prairie potholes, Carolina and Delmarva bays, pocosins, western vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie wetlands.�

That's only from the first 30 pages. What's in the remaining 267 pages???????

What I read, it seems that the CWA is more about the EPA writing about justifying the rule than the body of the rule itself. The body is buried among all the mumbo jumbo, and then they reference other regulations that you have to look up to understand what they are talking about.

I was under the impression that the EPA was told to go re-write it. I think they are flipping us all the bird and going ahead with it in it's original form anyway.

I may be wrong, but from my understanding, the steps that the EPA took will make the CWA legal in 60 days. If we don't get off our arses and write and call our congressmen and senators and create a big stink we will be stuck with it and all it's nuances.