Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations EPA Public Comment Period Begins

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.

Perhaps we can use this thread to civilly develop some cogent points about why we object to facets of the proposed changes.

I wouldn't worry about it.

I'd don't know what other states are doing, but here in WV the Farm Bureau is heading the management of this situation through a number of efforts. If other Farm Bureau members are also PB folks, talk to your Farm Bureau representative to find out what kind of effort they are heading in your state.

We are in a predicament here in WV because this effort should be headed through our Extension Service, but funding cuts are eliminating our aquaculture Extension Service, which is also going to have a major impact on our WV Aquaculture Association, as we will lose our main source of credentialed voices. It is all very disturbing and concerning.

You don't actually have to you don't own any water..

I left a comment but it is very hard to keep myself from saying things that are not helpful. I restrained myself.

Yeah, me too.

Cat, Texas Farm Bureau is already in the fight.

Texas is the number one beef producing state, and best I can tell, all cattle need water. Lot's of folks here ain't gonna be happy about the EPA in their ponds.

Looked like there was high, passionate, bi-partisan support against the rule changes in a congressional hearing yesterday with one politician calling it the largest land grab of private property in US history.

Even non-pond owning people SHOULD worry...the theory is that by defining a "significant nexus from similar situations" (ie, subdivision, or even rural asphalt shingled roofs, combined, could be deemed to leach oil into the navigable waterways) and fall under EPA jurisdiction. The possible scenarios are almost endless....another very scary rule is that the EPA is given sole, final say on "exempted" waters the CWA can not legally apply to, such as pre-existing crop land. The Crop land could be in use for 100's of years and the EPA can arbitrarily say it was "new", by simple a simple field inspection order, and the land owner will have no route to appeal, unless the EPA sues them in a court for unpaid fines....

Like I said Rex, I would not worry about it, and I won't! Worrying won't get you very far.

If you are concerned, then participate in an organized group with some decent management.

Well BGK, they tried to take our private wells, and last time I checked, there is supposed to be some water coming out of these devices

The fines that we are subject to for at least one portion of our operation are 37,000 dollars a day for each day out of compliance, and can go back as far as the day the law was passed. And they don't bother to tell you about being out of compliance for a couple years. So essentially, they have the power to bankrupt about anyone they decide they want to to make an example. That scares every one else into compliance or at least try to be compliant. Of course, there is an ex-employee that starts up a compliance company and for a "fee" can keep you out of harms way by filing all the paper work that is too complicated or requires an engineer to write a plan. Kind of sounds like legalized mafia to me and as long as you pay the "protection" money a person is safe.

I don't think we as pond owners want EPA to have jurisdiction over our BOW's.

All I know is if the VHS disease fiasco is any indication, the feds if given an inch will take a mile if given the chance.

What blew my mind was the total disregard of the hardship they caused fish farmers (shut down interstate fish commerce for almost a year) and wanted to do even more but thank God our representatives stepped in. For folks that were Phd's the science wasn't really there either.

On another note does anyone remember when a cow tested positive for Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (Mad Cow disease) a few years ago and the spokeswoman for CDC said there was nothing to worry about as long as no spinal cords are severed when cattle are butchered? Having been a meat cutter once I'm still scratching my head on that one. If cattle can be quartered and butchered without severing the spinal column I'd sure like to know how. The media didn't even catch it.

Recently we are told nothing to worry about with MERS (Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome), although person to person transfer has been confirmed here in the U.S. Funny that as when SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) was spreading in China we were told as long as it was animal to human and not human to human transfer there was nothing to worry about. But when it became human to human that would be be very serious. Hmmm...

Thanks for the link and Post Rainman. I gave them a 2000+ character rant and hope it helps. I sent the link with your and my content to 20 other non pond bossers in several States and asked them to send it out to everyone they knew that had any BOW at all and post as well.

All we can do is try and I hope my county extension agent will call me back and I will try to get her to speak on our behalf in our area. YEA good luck with that Huh!!!!!

Thanks for the link and Post Rainman. I gave them a 2000+ character rant and hope it helps. I sent the link with your and my content to 20 other non pond bossers in several States and asked them to send it out to everyone they knew that had any BOW at all and post as well.

All we can do is try and I hope my county extension agent will call me back and I will try to get her to speak on our behalf in our area. YEA good luck with that Huh!!!!!

Well Rex, I just read all that BS after a good nights sleep, and in my opinion, this is the eyebrow raiser:

Finally, the agencies retain the existing regulatory definitions for the terms “adjacent” and “wetlands.” The agencies propose for the first time to define the terms “neighboring,” “riparian area,” “floodplain,” “tributary,” and “significant nexus.”

All that other BS is pretty much in place up here. The EPA is no match to our local Gestapo

It will be interesting to see what the new proposed definitions will be, and I seriously doubt that a redneck will be inking it up We have them in MI too, and quite a few sheeple to boot!

Apathy, denial, ignorance, intimidation, and a instilling sense of helplessness is what these regulators seem to count on to take control over every aspect of a person's life. As it stands now, any field agent can arbitrarily claim your land falls under CWA/EPA jurisdiction, and by their regulations, you have no recourse other than acceptance and compliance.

In West Texas and the desert areas, will the definition of "neighboring", when coupled with the similar situations guidelines, now change a "region" from 1 square mile, to 10, 100, 1000?

Will the new "Riparian" definition now change from the normal banks of a stream to the entire area between two different streams?

Will a "flood plain" be the 10, 100, 500 year levels, or will they invoke archeological proportions?

Since the EPA already has given itself "Final Authority" to decide what it controls, they can interpret it in any way they choose.

okay yeah we have a lot of them that is not what I call them but I better not type that

Correction snrub....Double that a day/day $ criminal plus $ civil penalties...the Fed never does one without the other.

Worrying or not is entirely your right and choice. I made the post to inform those that are interested, might be concerned and want to be involved.

Yes, I am VERY concerned! I am participating in more than a few groups with "decent management", yet those groups tend to be the ones that make deals the fastest with entities such as the EPA that benefit said "decent management" rather than those they represent. Also, it is like choosing my preferred sheeple to join.....

Most are surprised how few, well informed, vocal, "everyday citizens" it really takes to make regulators and politicians wet their pants. "Groups" are easily bought off and/or appeased with promises to become silent for the very reasons stated above.