EPA makes the rules, then the States have to comply with them.
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/productio...s/proposed_regulatory_wus_text_40cfr230_0.pdf
What do the proposed EPA rules really mean
“Ditches— the rule regulates ditches as tributaries. EPA claims that the rule would exclude ditches, but the so-called ditch exclusion only covers ditches dug entirely in uplands. The rule doesn’t define uplands (so much for clarity), True- look up what it actually says in the first link.
Bloggers have opinions.
The onus is on you to prove that the EPA rules are the problem and not the local State DEP rules.
The first link is the EPA rules and I bet you did not read them.
The Farm Ranch Guide is not a bloggers site.
It's a ag publication
I am familiar for CFR regulations because I have worked with them most of my life. I can quote some of them off by heart. I don't need to read through them all to understand how they apply.
The blog article you pointed to was not specific to the topic that WW and I are discussing and therefore irrelevant. WW said that farmers would get into trouble building a pond. Nothing in that article refers to ponds. Instead it refers to existing wetlands and areas that fall under the jurisdiction of seasonal wetlands.
EPA rules does come under ponds.
EPA rules 8216 Waters of the U.S. 8217 threatens all private property Northern Colorado Gazette
The EPA argues that even tributaries which are man-made could fall under EPA authority, this includes ponds, canals, impoundments and ditches. The basis for the EPA to claim permitting authority over any property through which water flows, has flowed in the past, or could flow in the future is the determination by the EPA that if the water was, did, or could flow in such a manner as to have a significant nexus to traditional navigable waters. However, the meaning of “significant nexus” is unclear.
Wyoming welder faces 75 000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property Fox News
The first article is undated and I would appreciate if you could please provide one because it needs that context.
The second appears to be conflict between what the state of WY permits and the EPA. If the state is out of compliance then the EPA needs to deal with them first.
Read it again top right hand corner April 22,2014