Please contact your congress person and say no to HR2421. I'm all for the clean water act and think it's done some great things, but after seeing how the feds are handling the VHS virus situaton up here in the Great lakes, i have little faith in the federal government anymore. I don't think they could competently run the local day care. Looks like they want to control our wells, ditches etc. as well. (no pun intended)

I hope this is not considered a political post, as I am not singling out any politician or political party and feel we as pond owners should be aware of this.

Proposed U.S. Clean Water Legislation to Regulate Farm Ponds
by Suzi Fraser

Proposed U.S. Clean Water Legislation to Regulate Farm Ponds

Representative James Oberstar (D-Minn) has introduced legislation ( HR2421 ) which would greatly expand the regulatory reach of the Clean Water Act to the detriment of U.S. economic growth and agricultural operations, including aquaculture operations.

HR2421 will move the Clean Water Act beyond protecting wetlands and waterways, and create legislation that would regulate nearly every wet area in the nation - even if water is only present for a few days and even if it is on private land. This could include everything from ditches to farm ponds and possibly groundwater.

Under the proposed legislation, the regulatory reach of the CWA would undergo its greatest expansion since the law took effect in 1972 and grant the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers federal regulatory authority over all "intrastate waters". This proposal would potentially regulate nearly every wet area in the nation, including water on private lands. The new definition of "waters of the United States" would include farm and stock ponds to an estimated 55 million acres of prior converted cropland.

The National Aquaculture Association is urging its members immediately to contact their Congressional members to oppose HR2421.

This isn't what Lusk meant by political.

Good post Cecil

I always knew there would be a need to form a cohesive group of pond owners, for exerting political influence, to which this forum would be instrumental.

Perhaps that time is upon us now.

I remember Mr. Lusk making a post from Ray Scott's office asking that we let him know any time a governmental entity was hindering pond issues. I have not read Cecil's links, but this seems to be one Mr. Scott could have some national influence over.

Bing

Pond? What pond?

If there is any water left they will want to control it! Barry didn't help you out?

Sunil, I concur.

It has already started here in Minnesota. In this state, the D.N.R has too much power. I have already been told I can't cut down my cattails. I am doing it anyway.They are taking over my small pond and are very invasive. It's ok for Mndot to cut the cattails in the ditches, but I can't cut them in my own pond? What is wrong with this picture? I was also told I can't catch the fish I buy at the hatchery without a fishing license! So I have to buy the fish, then buy a fishing license to catch the fish in my own farm pond on private property!(If I wanted to,that is)
They want control over all the water, no questions asked! Bobbi

What is this country coming to?

But, it's to be expected...too many people, too little resources for them all...and they keep approving more new developments!

I have kept quiet on similar topics in the past, BUT, I was warned that any NRCS involvement in my project could lead to future consequences.
When I first embarked on this "pond" journey I contacted them and was told little or no funds available for this type of improvements (at that time, in my area). Maps of watershed were no problem but any further involvement would create a paper trail and "document" my property. Wetlands, surface waters etc. in general are beginning to get real attention.
At the time, I truly thought he was coping out on me. Now I am glad I'm not on their radar.
I try to avoid any, even remotely, political discussions on an informative, passionate, entertaining forum as this so take this info at face value and just one man's experience.
Sunil
You better start looking for an office and some employees. I can't think of anyone who would be better at heading up such a group!
Cecil
thanks for the post. It is time to make everyone aware.
Jersey
My EXACT thoughts also.
Dave
Good to see you old pre-color's still active and providing information.

Ya'll need to read George Orwell's 1984... At least it gives us an idea of where things are going. It's happening ma frens. Wars have been fought all over the world over water rights. The powers that be are intent on controlling the water, both ground and surface supplies. Do not be fooled that it is brain dead politicians doing this for a popular cause. It has an intentional end to it all. Use your imagination here, but postpone it? Yes. Stop it? Doubtful. On my 10 acres, I already pay for "metered" water out of my (very) rural well if I want to keep more than 1/4 acre "green" and I am not allowed to use my pond water for any watering, though my cows are still "allowed" to drink from it. If I sound the "conspiracy therorist" fool, look at your local history concerning water rights, and then tune back into this subject in 10 years nation-wide. My point will have been proven. Sorry. No good news in this arena, from my view point anyway.

Boatinflowers,

I've heard all about your state from othe fish farmers, and there is one particular one up there that is continually fighting your DNR. He claims he had ruffled some feathers up there and they are out to get him at all costs now. It's no wonder the congress critter that is introducing this legislation is from your state.

I once did an article on the importation requirements of various states in the Great Lakes basin, and I must say your state is the most restrictive and complicated. It's very, very, hard to import live fish to your state. And one can still be turned down for a permit, even with all your ducks in a row. To me that's too much power in the hands of a state agency.

Cecil,

I'm not a defeatist, but I think tighter and tighter regulations and restrictions are inevitable.

I think the only way the Feds will back off on regulation is if they see ponds as a source of tax revenue. The only thing the buzzards like more than control is money!

In my opinion, the only way you will be left alone in the future is to prove subsistance from your pond. You must plant some vegetables and pump out some water to keep them growing. Also prove that you survive to a large extent on eating your fish. That's how the eskimos can hunt and fish without licenses and take more than the recreational limit.

Jeez, I went to the link and if I'm reading the offending language in this bill correctly it essentially removes (from current legislation/regulation) the phrase "navigable waters of the United States" and substitutes the phase "Waters of the Unites States."

In the bill "Waters of the United States" is defined as:

"all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing"

Before you think it (or say it) this is not a Jeffhasapond joke, that's quoting the bill directly (or as directly as I can given my typing skills). I'd say that about covers every type of wet area. I get that we all need to be concerned about water pollution but this is taking an extreme stance. Besides who is more concerned about water quality than pond meisters.

All I can say is that if you pee on your property make sure that it dries quickly and does not pool or create a wet meadow - perhaps limit your urination to a 1 - 2 beer input/output factor. Six pack pees are no longer allowed, unless of course you can run while peeing - then you may have the proper disbursal factor to ensure quick drying.

NOTE: My intent is not to make light of this legislation however - this proposed bill seems like some serious stuff. I can see how this would trickle down to very restrictive control of pond chemicals.

this is already enforce in CA. the train derailment site i'm working on extends off of the railroad's easement to private land. the spill affected a storm water run off channel that is nothing more than a topographic low spot on a steep mountainside. the run off channel eventually turns into a seasonal creek bed only active in winter, and this is 1,000's of feet above any perennial creek/river.

despite this, the upper portion where the release occurred is designated as "waters of the U.S." and falls under USACE (Corps of Engineers) jurisdiction, and the hoops involved before we can dig out the "dirty dirt" are enormous and include a biological survey (endangered plants/animals), an aquatic survey (where there is no water??), an archaeaological survey, a forestry survey, a nesting raptor survey, permit applications and fees with Fed and State, and pre-construction notifications to Fed and State.....plus regulatory approved investigation work plans and storm water pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs)......all to remove what may amount to a few hundred cubic yards of impacted soil on a mountainside......welcome to my world.

"all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing"


So does that, or does that not include farm ponds? Mine is not fed by an intermittent stream. Merely by rain runoff.

No !! That is what the COE tries to claim but is not right.

We vote them into office and after a couple months they learn that they have the power to control. That is the end of representing us and the beginning of expanding that power.

What's a playa lake and what's the COE?

Playa is spanish for beach. I find it hard to believe that this would be a weak effort at PC.

COE = another acronym for Corps of Engineers.

the language (for "waters of the U.S.)used on our project with which the COE assumed regulatory jurisdiction was related to disturbing and or changing the course of the natural water way, and that no matter how insignificant the water way, it leads to an intermittant stream, and ultimately to a creek/river.

i think the general interp. for pondmeisters might be is that if you have an impoundment built before these regulations, you are not technically allowed to change it now without notification to the COE. then they rule whether or not you need a permit and their authorization.

if you want to build new, it will require notification. enforcement is another issue. they dont have the funds to run around and investigate aerial photos of the whole country to find out if people are ignoring the regulation.

Wish somebody would not have mentioned the idea of taxing us more. If that happens they can take my pond and shove it Then Ill move back to Germany. To much bs around here.

Dang Dave, you're just full of good news.

I would think that you would have to do a survey to determine what surveys need to be done.

Welcome to Kalhifoania



.
.

Reminds me of the Beatles song:


Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me

Cause I'm the tax man
Yea I'm the tax man

Should five percent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all

Cause I'm the tax man
Yea I'm the tax man

If you drive a car - I'll tax the street
If you try to sit - I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold - I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk - I'll tax your feet

Well I'm the tax man
Yea I'm the tax man

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more

Cause I'm the tax man
Yea I'm the tax man


And here I thought I was moving to the country to avoid being regulated to death.

The Clean Water Act is being interpreted as broadly as possible by many people with vested interests. They are using it in Illinois to push unreasonable septic system regulations through the legislature. If they keep getting by with it in one area, they will try other areas. Not only do we not need any legislation broadening it, we need some good legislation which greatly restricts the scope of the Clean Water Act.

I'm getting ready to head out of town for a few days, but I'll be contacting my two U.S. Senators offices later this week to see where they stand on this issue.

I'll report back what I find out.

This is an incredibly complex issue with more aspects than most of us mortals can even begin to envision.

My pond is probably considered "Interstate Waters" since my pond and property are in West Virginia, but most of my watershed is in Virginia -- my eastern property line is also the state line.

The language in the proposed bill scares the heck out of me. I especially fear "striking 'navigable waters . . .' " from the definitions. My current pond, and a smaller wildlife pond are in pasture watershed, but I also have "navigable water" elsewhere on my property, even though the stream is dry about 4-5 months during most years. It is in an area where I plan to excavate my next pond.

But, I do not think this bill has a chance of getting out of committee the way it is worded -- that is where we may have some influence.

On the other side of things, we have rampant water pollution problems in my area that have devastated sport fishing in public waters. Suburban sprawl with its many issues, and factory farms with massive manure and hormone seepage are just a few of the water issues that must be dealt with. Stupidity and bureaucracy on the enforcement side must also be dealt with somehow.

As private water managers, we not only need a voice, but we a level head who can report from Washington.

I also think we need to start another thread on this issue with suggested typical letters we will be sending to our congressional representatives. We also need to find out who is on the committee that will be reviewing this proposed bill, and we need to really plaster those representatives with e-mails. They don't necessarily have to be your representative -- we just need to get our views to all of them. The letters must be very to-the-point, and we can't sound like crackpots.

Anybody want to be a lobbyist?

I'm going to take the first step with a few calls when I'm back in the office tomorrow.

Here are the new COE /EPA guidlines. I think these are way beyond what the Court had in mind. They are far less than what is in the Bill CB1 pointed out.

June 5, 2007 Clean Water Act Jurisdiction

Clean Water Act Jurisdiction

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision

in

Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States

This memorandum provides guidance to EPA regions and U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers ["Corps"] districts implementing the Supreme Court’s decision in the

consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States1 (herein

referred to simply as "Rapanos") which address the jurisdiction over waters of the United

States under the Clean Water Act.2 The chart below summarizes the key points contained

in this memorandum. This reference tool is not a substitute for the more complete

discussion of issues and guidance furnished throughout the memorandum.

1 126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006).

2 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.

Summary of Key Points

The agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following waters:

• Traditional navigable waters

• Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters

• Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent

where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least

seasonally (e.g., typically three months)

• Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries

The agencies will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact-specific analysis to

determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water:

• Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent

• Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent

• Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non-navigable

tributary

The agencies generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features:

• Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume,

infrequent, or short duration flow)

• Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and

that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water

The agencies will apply the significant nexus standard as follows:

• A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the

tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to

determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of

downstream traditional navigable waters

• Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors


http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/cwa_guide/cwa_guide.htm

Any updates on this?

Basically same info as Ewest provided...

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/CWAwaters.html

It isn't only the Feds.

West Virginia has claimed most of the water in the state for itself.

The Summer 2007 West Virginia Extension Service "Fish Tales" news letter has some scary information about what West Virginia has done. I can only assume that other states have done the same thing.

I was quite surprised a few months ago to find that my pond, and the usually dry watershed that feeds it, are shown as "navigable water ways" on the county tax map.

I've got some contacts in DC. I'll call them tomorrow and try to get an update...

As a former senate staffer, I can tell you that letters and phone calls are actually very effective -- just keep it simple, know all of the facts, and keep your cool. The only thing that members worry about more than the number of daily "issue calls & letters" they receive is whether their daily press releases have been picked up by the news outlets in their district or state.