Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Navitable Waters Protection Rule

This is not being posted to be political, because all political posts will be removed. I was notified from my local Farm Bureau about this on Saturday and didn't know if ya'll know about this.

From the Farm Bureau:
On Dec. 7, 2021, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers proposed a new rule that would reverse the NWPR and bring back the troubling pre-2015 regulatory regime.

Indiana Farm Bureau is urging EPA to recognize the burden that this overreaching regulation places on farmers and ranchers, and to keep the term "navigable" in the Clean Water Act regulations. Once again, we need you to be involved! Write to protect the NWPR and prevent a return to regulatory uncertainty. Send your comments to EPA today! Ask EPA to keep the Navigable Waters Protection Rule! The deadline is Feb. 7, 2022.

Link to the Farm Bureau site for an easy, quick reply.

Thank you for the link. I sent my comments agreeing with the Farm Bureau.

The genie got stuffed back in the bottle in 2015 and it does NOT need to be let out.

Thanks for the posting, esshup.

Pending legislation regarding ponds SHOULD be discussed on the forum. I hope that is an exception to the "no politics" rule.



P.S. Thanks for the work the moderators do regarding the rules about "politics" on the site. Pond Boss is by far the most amicable "topic" forum I visit on the web. I personally enjoy political debates - on sites designated for that purpose. But I have seen things quickly turn rancorous with lingering hurt feelings. What a loss that would be on Pond Boss!

Thanks for posting that. Commented and shared...

I don't see environmental protection as a political issue and I think we all want to improve our environment. We share a particular interest in waters, so I think sharing pending rules on these waters is probably appreciated here.

Private land ownership is an underpinning of western society, and that includes what's on the land, and what's under the land.

Any forces that seek to change that need to be fought.

I think that land use is a tricky thing when one use can impact the use on adjacent land. Is it OK for a pig farm to pollute a steam that runs into your pond? I agree with the current objection, because the costs of "proving" an obvious improvement on one's property can keep environmental benefits from being affordable and discourage their implementation.