Biotics Environmental Consulting

Are you a small land owner or community in need of environmental support against "Big Industry"? Are environmental consulting firms refusing to help you because they are to vested with Big Polluters or want to charge high unaffordable rates?

Some of our accomplishments include:

1) Defeating a quarry in Butts County (2021).

2) Assisting Crystal Lake Homeowners in Fayette County to recover damages to the lake as a result of the construction of the Trilith Development (2022).

3) Preventing the construction of a large landfill in Haralson County GA (2022).

4) Preventing the construction of an aggregate quarry in Paulding County GA (2022).

5) Preventing the construction of the largest Confined Animal Feeding Operation east of the Mississippi in Coffee County GA (2025).

We don't blindly stand against development, but we do stand against bad projects that have the potential to negatively affect families and communities.

Our lead Scientist has 36 years of experience including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

If you are feeling helpless, we are here to help!

Send a message to learn more

These new rules provide for the protection of our small streams and wetlands. While these waters are small individually, they make up the vast network of our interconnected waterways.
Think of the major blood vessels that equate to large rivers, and then contemplate our very small capillaries as small streams. The vast amount of our blood flow also equates to our river systems in that small waterbodies make up the majority of the aquatic system.

https://www.epa.gov/wotus?fbclid=IwAR1brVSlQ2Tell6FKiE0SEyvuKAUNfjkc95V-uxb47exX2btx8IbM5ASXDI

Waters of the United States | US EPA Information regarding the revised definition of Waters of the United States

Did you know in Georgia you can get a 60% tax break on portions of your property that are considered Mountainous Terrain, Wetlands, Significant groundwater recharge areas, Undeveloped barrier islands, protected species habitat, River or stream corridors or buffers within 100 year floodplains. To qualify for the exemption you must place the proprty area under a 20-year conservation easement.

If you beleive you have any of these categories on your property and are interetsed in participating in this program, please contact me.

Biotics has collected PFOA/PFOS sampling and data used successfully in a civil lawsuits. If you suspect your soil or water has beeen contaminated, we can assist you.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/15/1105222327/epa-drinking-water-chemicals-pfas-pfoa-pfos

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=358368579657849&set=a.274987681329273

Statewide Outdoor Burn Ban Starts May 1st

HENRY COUNTY, GA - April 20, 2022 – The Georgia Statewide Outdoor Burning Ban is set to begin Sunday, May 1st and will continue until September 30th, 2022. This means that Henry County residents will be not able to burn outdoors during this time, and commercial outdoor burning is also prohibited during this time.

For more information, Henry County residents are encouraged to visit the Georgia State EPD website at https://epd.georgia.gov/air-protection-branch/open-burning-rules-georgia/summer-open-burning-ban for more information.

Further questions concerning the 2022 Burn Ban timeframe can be directed to the Henry County Fire Prevention Bureau at (770) 288-6637 or the Georgia EPD’s Metro Atlanta District office at (404) 362-2671.

The Navigable Waters Protection Rule. I have reviewed all 430 pages of this document over a 5-day period, and will review it again. I have been doing jurisdictional waters determinations since 1989 as a U.S. EPA employee both as a permit regulator and also in the EPA enforcement office. I have also completed JDs (as they are commonly called), in civil employment, testified in State and Federal Courts, and prepared documents for the U.S. Dept. of Justice for Criminal Prosecution of Environmental Violators. All told, I've probably completed, reviewed, or approved well over a thousand of these jurisdictional determinations. I was on the national panel for the 2015 "Obama" Waters of US Rule while employed in the Water Division at U.S. EPA Region 4.

What exactly is a Waters of U.S. Jurisdictional Determination and why is it important? It is implementation of law, regulation, and guidance on land parcels that will determine what waters the federal (or state) can claim jurisdiction on, that is, waters they can regulate, determine use of, prohibit impacts or require permits for actions affecting these waters. If a water is "non-jurisdictional", then the government cannot impose restrictions upon those waters. The Federal and State Governments may have independent definitions of Waters of U.S., and Waters of the State, respectively. The new rule only applies to federal definitions and jurisdiction.

Don't believe all the hype you are hearing about the massive loss of streams and wetlands that will result from the new rule. Most of those streams and wetlands were already non-jurisdictional. While the new rule isn't great and certainly there is some less protection of waters, it also clarifies many confusing aspects of the definition of Waters of the U.S. I'm far less daunted by it after reading it. We must continue to work on improving protection of our Nations waters, and all other natural resources.

You will also read that the 2015 Waters of U.S. "Obama" rule tried to expand the jurisdictional scope of waters and now we are back to the Rule of 1987 (which was in effect until 2015) and somehow its a giant step backward. If I have to say this 10,000 times over, I will: The 2015 Definition of Waters was NEVER intended to increase or decrease scope of jurisdiction. It was clearly stated so in its intent and approval. It was only meant to be a clarification of terms and policy. The Obama rule did NOT offer more protection to U.S. waters, period. BUT, what happened is politicians and bureaucrats in Washington D.C. became involved and the resultant rule was more ambiguous and misunderstood, and consisted of more arguable legal terms than science. This is what happens when Scientists and Field Experienced folks are ignored by upper level bureaucrats and politicians. Many of us involved with these jurisdictional determinations on a daily basis opposed some of the changes in 2015 because the ambiguity had the potential for misuse and we predicted a back lash because of certain aspects. If the pendulum is at rest, and everything is fine, then leave it be. If you give the pendulum a push, remember it can also go back the other way.

Those that know me well will be the first to tell you that I am about as environmentally "green" as they come. And when it comes to streams, rivers, wetlands, oceans, and any other natural water, I am the strongest proponent of their protection and responsible use. Indeed, it has been the focus of my entire professional life.

I will be posting a detailed essay on the new Rule on my business site on this page also my LinkedIn page within a week or so:

I have many friends here that are also experts in this arena, River Keepers, Water Protectors, Government Employees, Environmental Attorneys and others. I encourage their input.

Biotics Environmental Consulting LLC Environmental consulting for Waters of State/U.S. Studies and restoration of Wetlands/Streams/Lakes and Water Quality. Protected Species Surveys and Habitat Conservation. Conservation Land Use Agreements. Regulatory Permitting. Expert Witness Testimony.

Comments on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0149
Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”

Mark LaRue
Jurisdictional Waters Expert
Biotics Environmental Consulting LLC
30 years of CWA Section 404 Jurisdictional Experience including 20+ years at U.S. EPA Region 4, Water Protection Division

General Comments
At the heart of the proposed revisions to the definition of Waters of the U.S., is the overall theme and effort to prevent exertion of jurisdiction over water ways that are ephemeral in flow regime in the belief that the Congressional creation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1973 and ensuing amendments, there was not intent to exert jurisdiction over ephemeral water ways and certain isolated waters. From 1973 to the present there has certainly been an expansion of jurisdiction “up slope” from Traditional Navigable Waters. The knowledge base and understanding of the importance of aquatic ecosystems has expanded astronomically since 1973 as well. I am certain that Congress in 1972, given the environmental knowledge we have today, would have crafted a completely different Clean Water Act (CWA). Indeed, maybe a CWA re-write is what is needed rather than just a new definition of Waters of the U.S.
That being said, the U.S. EPA should consider the vital ecological functions and values provided by streams that flow ephemerally to intermittently and include these waters as jurisdictional components of Waters of the United States. Almost 60 percent of stream miles in the continental U.S. only flow seasonally or after storms. The very foundation of our nation’s great rivers is a vast network of unknown, unnamed and underappreciated streams. These water sources, often referred to as headwater streams, are often unnamed and rarely appear on maps. While these small streams and their associated wetlands often appear insignificant, they are in fact very important, as they feed into and create larger waterways. Headwater streams and wetlands trap floodwaters, recharge groundwater supplies, remove pollution, provide fish and wildlife habitat, and sustain the health of downstream rivers, lakes and bays. Many streams that flow for only part of the year are the source of the nation’s fresh waters, particularly in the arid west where more than 95 percent of the streams are seasonal, and changes that harm these headwaters affect all streams, lakes and rivers downstream. Despite their seasonal or temporary appearance, headwater streams and wetlands are critical to the health of river systems, and are hydrologically, biologically, and chemically connected to downstream waters.

The U.S. EPA has recognized the values of ephemeral and intermittent streams in the following documents:
• U.S. EPA: The Ecological and Hydrological Significance of Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams in the Arid and Semi-arid American Southwest

o U.S. EPA: Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence (Final Report). This report represents the state-of-the-science on the connectivity and isolation of waters in the United States. It makes five major conclusions, summarized below, that are drawn from a broad range of peer reviewed scientific literature.

o The scientific literature unequivocally demonstrates that streams, regardless of their size or frequency of flow, are connected to downstream waters and strongly influence their function.

o The scientific literature clearly shows that wetlands and open waters in riparian areas (transitional areas between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems) and floodplains are physically, chemically, and biologically integrated with rivers via functions that improve downstream water quality. These systems act as effective buffers to protect downstream waters from pollution and are essential components of river food webs.

o There is ample evidence that many wetlands and open waters located outside of riparian areas and floodplains, even when lacking surface water connections, provide physical, chemical, and biological functions that could affect the integrity of downstream waters. Some potential benefits of these wetlands are due to their isolation rather than their connectivity. Evaluations of the connectivity and effects of individual wetlands or groups of wetlands are possible through case-by-case analysis.

o Variations in the degree of connectivity are determined by the physical, chemical and biological environment, and by human activities. These variations support a range of stream and wetland functions that affect the integrity and sustainability of downstream waters.

o The literature strongly supports the conclusion that the incremental contributions of individual streams and wetlands are cumulative across entire watersheds, and their effects on downstream waters should be evaluated within the context of other streams and wetlands in that watershed.

There is a wide abundance of other research supporting the significant ecological values performed by ephemeral and intermittent streams and their vital positive contribution to downstream waters. The relinquishment of jurisdiction over ephemeral and intermittent streams and their abutting/adjacent wetlands is a severe threat to the overall health and integrity of our nation’s waters and poses a threat to human health and recreation.
The U.S. EPA should exert jurisdiction over all intermittent streams and their associated wetlands and over all ephemeral streams (and associated wetlands) that maintain an ordinary highwater mark and a defined bed and bank.
To assist with defining jurisdictional headwater streams, the U.S. EPA should refine and apply guidance developed by the EPA and State Agencies. In the southeast, the U.S. EPA and numerous states have adopted several methods for assessing the hydrologic permanence of headwater streams. These methods correlate the discriminant functions that separate ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial stream reaches and include:
• North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins.
• U.S. EPA: Field Operations Manual for Assessing the Hydrologic Permanence and Ecological Condition of Headwater Streams.
• Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Headwater Habitat Evaluation Index (HHEI), and the North Carolina Department of Water Quality Stream Classification Method (NCSC) were strongly correlated with the discriminant function that separated
• U.S. EPA: Physical Stream Assessment: A Review of Selected Protocols for Use in the Clean Water Act Section 404 Program.
• U.S EPA: Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for the Pacific Northwest.
• State of Tennessee Stream Hydrologic Determination method.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: A Review of Land and Stream Classifications in Support of Developing a National Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Classification

The following comments are more specific to each section of the Proposed Definition of “Waters of the United States” as published in the Federal Register.
Introductory paragraph:
Comment: The achievement of “bright line” categorizations is simply not possible with natural ecosystems. Indeed, wetlands are identified as transitional zones between waters and uplands, and wetland boundaries can be difficult to determine in the field (and even more difficult from “desk top”), and stream segments also have no “bright line” when transitioning from ephemeral to intermittent, and perennial reaches. The EPA should avoid use of the “bright line” term and focus on the use of “clarity and predictability” when developing the new rule. Eliminating the case by case significant nexus test is a positive move that reduces work effort for regulators and consultants, reduces confusion, and proposing instead the establishment of clear categories of jurisdictional waters would better define Waters of the U.S.
I encourage the definition of “waters of the United States” that aligns with the intent of Congress to broadly interpret the term “navigable waters” beyond just commercially navigable-in-fact waters.
The EPA should abandon the use of the terms Relatively Permanent Water and Non-Relatively Permanent Waters and use the above, or other, classification methods to determine hydrologic permanence of streams in line with the more appropriate science terms of ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial.

A. Traditional Navigable Waters and Territorial Seas
Comment: I agree with the proposal to include both traditional navigable waters and the territorial seas as a single category of jurisdictional waters.

B. Interstate Waters
Comment: I agree with the proposal to eliminate interstate waters as a separate category of “waters of the United States” and include such waters as “navigable waters” resulting in a more concise Waters of U.S. Definition.
C. Impoundments
Comment: I agree with the EPA that no change in definition should be made to the definition of impoundments.
D. Tributaries
Comment: The proposed rule, defines “tributary” to mean a river, stream, or similar naturally occurring surface water channel that contributes perennial or intermittent flow to a traditional navigable water or territorial sea in a typical year either directly or indirectly through other jurisdictional waters, such as other tributaries, impoundments, and adjacent wetlands or through water features identified in paragraph (b) of this proposal so long as those water features convey perennial or intermittent flow downstream. Tributaries as defined in this proposal do not include surface features that flow only in direct response to precipitation, such as ephemeral flows, dry washes, arroyos, and similar features. These features lack the required perennial or intermittent flow regimes to satisfy the tributary definition under this proposal and therefore would not be jurisdictional.
The proposal only includes intermittent and perennial streams and I strongly disagree with eliminating ephemeral waterways and their associated wetlands from jurisdiction as stated in my introductory paragraph. The proposed rule should include natural ephemeral channels with an Ordinary High Water Mark, defined bed and bank, and other features identified in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-05 and other guidance identified in my opening paragraph. Unnatural ephemeral waters such as ditches, water flumes, and other artificial/man-made drain ways should be categorically excluded from being jurisdictional waters. Further, western “washes” and “arroyos” and the like, provide essential ecological benefits and are used for drinking water sources. The loss of jurisdiction over these water ways poses a serious threat to the environment and human health and the EPA should retain jurisdiction over these waters when they meet the criteria of RGL 05-05 and other (perhaps new) guidance that could be adopted by modifying existing methods and procedures.
I agree with the proposed EPA definitions and periods of flow for ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams
I agree with the “Typical year” as defined in the proposed rule which means within the normal range of precipitation over a rolling thirty-year period for a particular geographic area.
I take issue with the proposal that “Perennial or intermittent flow would require some form of discrete and confined flow (as opposed to diffuse overland flow) forming geographic features such as rivers, streams, or similar naturally occurring surface water channels. Often times in the Mountains and Piedmont geographic province, streams with course down steep slopes and empty into broad flats and sheet flow through floodplains before water entering other jurisdictional waters. This connectivity through sheet flow is likely oi other similar geographic regions. In the least, these streams that sheet flow into 100-year floodplains should be considered jurisdictional.
Therefore, a perennial or intermittent stream that flows into a non-jurisdictional ephemeral feature should meet the definition of “tributary” if the perennial or intermittent flow reaches a traditional navigable water or territorial sea; the ephemeral feature should not sever jurisdiction.
I propose that ephemeral ditches and other non-natural drainages should be excluded from jurisdiction. I concur that the non-jurisdictional ditches would not sever jurisdiction under the proposed rule as long as the ditches convey perennial or intermittent flow to tributaries or other jurisdictional waters at the downstream end of the ditch.
All references to streams in this section should be modified to include ephemeral streams with an OHWM, and meeting other criteria in RG05-05, and other guidance.
I highly recommend and support the EPA proposal to work with States to develop consistent methods of wetland and stream identification methods, assessing climatic data for normal years, and compiling publicly accessible data bases of known jurisdictional waters.
In situations where there is less than intermittent flow in a channel (i.e. ephemeral), that flow regime should not break jurisdiction of upstream and downstream perennial or intermittent flows. There are many areas of karst and other topography that allow stream channels to course underground and then rise to the surface, reflecting the geology of the reach and the ability of groundwater to continue its influence on hydrologic permanence. Where such reductions in flow occur, that should not break jurisdiction between up and down stream reaches that otherwise exhibit surficial ephemeral, intermittent or perennial flows.
Natural and man-made breaks should not break the jurisdictional status of upstream waters.
I recommend staying with the current definition of intermittent flow occurring during “certain times of the year” and not adopting to “seasonal flow” or other narrow time frames. Defining intermittent flow too restrictively can lead to loss of jurisdiction over intermittent streams, and that is not the intent of former agency policy nor should it be policy in the future.

E. Ditches
I support the proposal to define ditches as simply artificial channels used to convey water. I also agree with the proposed definition of ditches to include as “waters of the United States”. I am confused and concerned that the proposal allows that ditches not covered in the proposed categories could still be regulated by States and Tribes and would be subject to CWA permitting if they meet the definition of “point source” in CWA section 502(14). The purpose of this entire proposal is to define jurisdictional waters and offering that “non jurisdictional” waters might otherwise become jurisdictional under separate aspects of the CWA is flawed. Clarity should be offered in the final rule such that all CWA components have consistent predictable jurisdiction.

F. Lakes and Ponds
Comments: Why aren’t impoundments, lakes and ponds included in the same category? These three water bodies should be in a single category with the same definitions and application in the rule. I continue to recommend that ephemeral streams meeting RGL 05-05 criteria should be included as jurisdictional as well as their associated wetlands, and any naturally formed or man-made open waters form from such ephemeral streams. In general, most scientists define ponds as less than 10-acres in size and less than 10-feet deep, lakes are defined as larger than 10-acres and more than 10 feet deep. But again, nature does not often follow regulatory definitions and ponds and lakes should be broadly defined.
I disagree with the agency proposal that “a mere hydrologic connection between a non-navigable, isolated, intrastate lake or pond and a jurisdictional water, may be insufficient to establish jurisdiction under the proposed rule and that a lake or pond that may be connected to a “water of the United States” by flooding, on average, once every 100 years would not be jurisdictional under this proposal. To be jurisdictional, a lake or pond that is otherwise physically separated from a “water of the United States” would need to be flooded by a jurisdictional water during a typical year; ecological connections between physically separated lakes and ponds and otherwise jurisdictional waters cannot be used to assert jurisdiction according to this proposal.”
Waters of any kind that are within the 100-year floodplain should be jurisdiction regardless of hydrologic regime or landscape position. These waters provide valuable flood storage benefits worth billions of dollars per year in flood damage cost reduction across the United States. The agencies should give careful consideration to all waters within the 100-year floodplain. Additionally, a physical connection within the 30-year average and/or 100 flood event should maintain jurisdictional status.
As stated elsewhere, I agree with the elimination of the significant nexus requirements for jurisdictional determinations.
I caution the use of USGS topographical maps and the appearance of broken or solid blue line streams for uses of jurisdictional. These maps are outdated and were never ground truthed. They are high inaccurate for daily use. The agencies should avoid the use of USGS Maps, NWI maps, and Soil Maps, and even aerial imagery as strong indicators of jurisdiction. The development of wide spread data bases in each state that are developed from more modern data and methods would be more useful and better indicators of potential jurisdiction.

G. Wetlands
This an extensive section and in general I recommend that all wetlands with a direct hydrologic surface connection (physical connection) to an ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial stream, either within a “typical year” within the normal range of precipitation over a rolling 30-year period, or with a connection to the 100-year floodplain, and wetlands that are also connected directly to a TNW, should be jurisdictional. The loss of jurisdictional streams and wetlands under the current proposal is unacceptable and will have dire consequences to the integrity of the physical, chemical, and biological aspects of waters that the CWA was implemented to protect.
The terms abutting and adjacent should be abandoned and wetlands with a physical connection to ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial waters either within the normal range of precipitation over a rolling 30-year period, or with a connection to the 100-year floodplain should be jurisdictional. Natural and man made barriers should not sever jurisdiction.
The use of a “measured distance” from a TNW, or other jurisdictional water, including ephemeral streams (that meet the criteria of RGL 05-05) should absolutely be avoided. Such distances are arbitrary and never take into consideration the functions and values of aquatic systems located in and outside the boundary.
Eliminating the significant nexus criteria and relying on a physical connection is the most definable and predictable way of measuring jurisdiction. I do propose that such physical connection should be considered within the rolling 30-year period, or with a connection to the 100-year floodplain.
I strongly disagree with the alternate approach, whereby wetlands that are separated from another jurisdictional water by upland or a d**e, barrier or other similar structure would not be jurisdictional even if they have a direct hydrologic surface connection in a typical year to an otherwise jurisdictional water. I believe seasonal overtopping, and other direct hydrologic surface connection through the upland or structure (e.g.,through a culvert) should be sufficient to exert jurisdiction.
The agencies solicit comment on whether this approach is more consistent with the considerations articulated above than the approach in the proposed definition.

H. Waters and Features That Are Not Waters of the United States
Comments: The proposed rule would exclude groundwater, including groundwater drained through subsurface drainage systems. I am concerned about stormwater and other surface waters that are collected and transported via undergone pipes. Specifically, these underground systems are included in the EPA MS4 program and should be considered as jurisdictional when they connect to other jurisdictional waters. This proposed rule would exclude ephemeral surface features and diffuse stormwater run-off such as directional sheet flow over upland. I believe “ephemeral surface features” may be defined using the OHWM RGL 05-05 and other methods and could be included as jurisdictional. Ephemeral surface features and diffuse storm water run- off not meeting the OHWM etc. criteria would be considered non-jurisdictional.
Please see my comments regarding Ditches, Section E, that are also applicable to this section.
I have serious concerns regarding the proposed rule to exclude water-filled depressions created in upland incidental to mining or construction activity, and pits excavated in upland for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel. Mining pits in particular can cause degradation of downstream waters and violate the significant degradation clauses of the CWA. These depressional waters should only be non-jurisdictional when there is absolutely no physical connection between these waters and other jurisdictional waters at any time regardless of a rolling 30-year or flood event or 100 year flood event.
I agree with the clarifications on PC farmlands and “recapture” provisions in the proposed rule.

The remainder of this section reflects little change from current policy, that I find to be reasonable and applicable, and no changes should be made.

Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,

One of the most significant changes to the United States regulation of waters is being proposed as the "Clean Water Rule" that will be published in February to solicit Public Comment regarding the proposed changes. The post is the first of series about the new Rule and starts with the history of waterways regulation in the United States.

After becoming a Nation, it quickly became apparent that we must some how maintain waterways for commercial ships. One the first acts addressing this activity was the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1824 that appropriated $75,000 to improve navigation on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers and the project was granted to the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Corps had massive dredges used to maintain navigability of harbors and access to Military Sea Forts. There have been many other Rivers and Harbors Acts and amendments, and through time, the US Government went from having "jurisdiction" that initially covered only "navigable" large ports and waters, to having jurisdiction over almost all waterways including wetlands, small streams, and other "non-navigable" waters. As the extent of jurisdiction expanded, the Government had greater ability to regulate these waters and the ability to affect private property. There have been numerous law suits each step of the way, with most finding in favor of the government and the expanded jurisdictions have mostly remained in place.

Since 1986/1988, the term waters of the United States means:

All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
(From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition;
Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (4) of this section;
The territorial sea;
Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (6) of this section; waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States.

This definition allowed a broad scope of applicability of jurisdiction and has been the subject of controversy since its inception. This definition remained in place until 2009, when it was challenged in court and thereafter... the definition of Waters of the US has become very complicated and entangled in legal battles across the US.

So, why are these small streams, wetlands and isolated waters important to us humans? Think of the human circulatory system containing large veins that dwindle down in size to the tiniest of capillaries that provide oxygen and nourishment to the smallest areas of your body. Caution, graphic Illustrations attached. What would happen if we eliminated all these small capillaries? In the same fashion, small streams and wetlands provide water quality benefits that serve the entire aquatic ecosystem including the larger water bodies. When "jurisdiction" is relinquished on the these small aquatic systems, they are subject to being polluted and destroyed without restraint and there can be negative consequences downstream.

Those citizens that have these small water ways on their property may feel encumbered by the restrictions they may face when making use of their property. America has always been a property rights and commerce driven Nation. We are going to have to ask our selves where that balance between the environment and private use is attained. And that is what the new Rule will be trying to achieve.

It is important that we all convey our feelings in the Public Comment for the Rule, and let our great Republic work accordingly.

Stay tuned for Part II of this Series: The creation of EPA and its authority to determine the geographic scope of jurisdiction of Waters of the U.S. And the Courts get involved.