Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations wetlands...

You already fit in well with this bunch! LOL

Be advised that some of those government types don't seem to take well to jokes!!! LOL But it is worth it just to see their reactions !!! :p

J.R.

In my experience from dealing with government agencies is in California, and I've learned it's always a bad idea to contact any of them if you don't have to. Most of them need to create problems to justify their existance. If they didn't have a problem to correct, they wouldn't be there and allot of people living off the taxpayer wouldn't have a job anymore. Just my opinion.

You say you have a wetland on your property. Are you sure it's a wetland and not a shallow pond that needs cleaning up and maybe dug a little deeper??? Definitions can be very important here.

I've seen a landower win a battle with several California State agencies about a pond he build because they were not able to prove it was not an "existing" pond.

They tried revoking easements, searching vehicles, flying helocopters over us during hunting season and accusing us of contributing to the loss of habitat for a certain salamander. We actually had to prove that type of salamnder didn't exist!!!!

Anyway, they couldn't prove the pond didn't already exist, so they harrased him for awhile and ended up paying his legal fees plus $50,000 in penalties.

It can be an interesting battle,
Eddie

Update on this thread.

Here is a report on the case(s)[now decided] Trent noted above.

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).

[ August 05, 2006, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: ewest ]

--------------------
Ichthyusiasts read Pond Boss Magazine

Eric, thanks for bringing this outcome to our attention. Even those of us who have ponds antedating the current regulatory thicket are interested in the subject.
Lou

Hate to be "political"...but...what a bunch of crap where you have to "get permission" from "daddy" before you can dig a pond...

What are we coming too...

I didn't ask anyone. I just started digging.

When it comes right down to it, it's very hard for the Government to stop you from doing what you want to with your land. Problem is, by the time you pay the lawyers, you may be too broke to dig.

I like the "enlightened despot" bit.

Or if you pay a high fee to a consultant and sign the above mentioned disclaimer that they are not responsible for the advise given. :rolleyes: