And that's why it's not a good idea to dam up a creek on a navigable waterway, AND fill in a section of said creek with silt and debris. That's NEVER a good idea, irregardless of whether it's your land.
Giant red flag that says "come hither and see", when your downstream neighbor's water supply goes awry.
More to this story, methinks.
The original intent, definition and LIMITATION congress gave the EPA on a navigable waterway, was a river or stream that was used for COMMERCIAL transport of goods. Nothing was said about recreational use, nor feeder streams, nor DRY land within ANY distance of a river/stream. The EPA created those definitions and expanded it's reach. The US Supreme Court has TWICE in the last 2 years said the EPA had extended it's "jurisdiction" beyond the powers it was given, and the EPA continues to ignore that.
If I have Water Rights on my land, I have the power to stop flow of any water on my property, regardless of what is down stream...same as someone up stream of me has that right. If a creek flows, building a pond/small lake would only temporarily stop flow. A normal person would not stop flow if wanting a pond/lake, but could easily reduce it to allow water downstream AND fill a pond/lake.
You have a pond, spark, you altered the "natural" flow of water to any and all downstream of you. By your theory, anyone downstream could sue and make you restore the "natural" flow. Obviously, no one has, but now, the EPA may simply decide from a Google Earth photo that your pond is some violation and order you to restore the land...and, the EPA will dictate to you exactly what they consider restoration to be. You'd either comply, at whatever cost, or be fined $75K a day, from the day they tell you to remove the pond. It happens often!
