Digging out stream?

[avboiler11]

A few months back, my wife and I closed on a piece of property. The property has a year-round stream on it, though it is fairly shallow; the deepest part of it is probably a 18" under normal conditions with a nominal depth of 6-8". I'm thinking of using a mini-excavator to dig/dredge out a portion of the stream to make it deeper, as well as digging out a deep pool. My goal is a large/deep enough area to sustain fish, using the moving water to keep everything from becoming stagnant.

Has anybody done this before?

Does anybody know of any legal issues doing this with a stream on your own property? FWIW, our land is not classified forestry or watershed.

Access to equipment/competent operator is not an issue.

Thanks!

 

[CBR1000rr]

There are quite a few regulations between several different government agencies.

IDEM: Permit Guide: Dredging

 

[shibumiseeker]

Moreover to the above, you will likely be redoing it every year or two.

 

[T.Lex]

Does anybody know of any legal issues doing this with a stream on your own property?

This is not legal advice to you or anyone else, but you're referring to "riparian rights." Now, your little stream may not end up being a big deal, but if you unreasonably interfere with the downstream flow or size, there could be legal issues.

Your best course of action would be to find a local attorney with experience in riparian rights to reduce any risk of future lawsuits.

 

[AGarbers]

Moreover to the above, you will likely be redoing it every year or two.

This. Silt will quickly fill it right back in. Have the IDNR relocate some beavers to your property. They will build a nice pond and keep it maintained, that is if you can keep them on your property and not flood any farmland, or destroy valuable woodlands. (I am joking.)

 

[Hardscrable]

IDEM, Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, possibly County Drainage Board all involved along with probably others. Info regarding continual maintenance also accurate.

 

[Dave Doehrman]

I've got 400' of stream that runs through my property. It is actually the headwaters of Spy Run Creek that usually causes flooding in Fort Wayne. I talked to the County Drainage folks about clearing log jams, brush piles and cleaning up the banks. I was going to do all the work myself. They told be absolutely not to do it. They want the natural impediments to slow the flow of water going into larger creeks and rivers down stream. They want the heavy rains to back up on the low areas of my property to prevent flooding further down stream.

One I talked to them I never bothered to talk to IDEM or the DNR. I thinl I would have been wasting my time trying to proceed.

 

[easy]

Dave Doeheman - Sound like typical .gov, passing along their problem onto you. They don't want flooding downstream but your land can become a swamp and they're all kinds of happy about that. Really good for your property value too.

 

[avboiler11]

I appreciate the insight, folks...especially the link CBR1000r posted. I didn't know what I didn't know, but figured somebody here had BTDT before.

Looks like some hoops to jump through for sure, but the juice might end up being worth the squeeze from a regulatory side...we'll see.

 

[Leadeye]

Did this at my old house to clear out the stream and improve the banks, project went through the summer, nobody complained and I never saw the government.

 

[dsol]

I've got 400' of stream that runs through my property. It is actually the headwaters of Spy Run Creek that usually causes flooding in Fort Wayne. I talked to the County Drainage folks about clearing log jams, brush piles and cleaning up the banks. I was going to do all the work myself. They told be absolutely not to do it. They want the natural impediments to slow the flow of water going into larger creeks and rivers down stream. They want the heavy rains to back up on the low areas of my property to prevent flooding further down stream.

One I talked to them I never bothered to talk to IDEM or the DNR. I thinl I would have been wasting my time trying to proceed.

Nice of them.... screw flooding. I would clear it out anyway and let them do their job downstream. That is what they are avoiding, gov workers avoid work like nothing else. I would not put up with flooding if there was anything I could do about it.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Nice of them.... screw flooding. I would clear it out anyway and let them do their job downstream. That is what they are avoiding, gov workers avoid work like nothing else. I would not put up with flooding if there was anything I could do about it.

Even better. Dont CLEAR the stream. Move the obstructions UPSTREAM. They said they didnt want the stream to be able to flow faster to them to prevent flooding downstream. Who says you cant move the obstructions UPSTREAM to appease .gov's downstream concerns?

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

My thoughts go to a similar approach to certain varmints. Shoot. Shovel. Shuddup.

 

[mike4sigs]

My thoughts go to a similar approach to certain varmints. Shoot. Shovel. Shuddup.

O.P This some very good advise, If your going to research it further and seek advise , Don't talk to government Agency Stay with the like of an Attorney! If you seek help from the Gov. they will all the sudden have reason to be interested in your Happenings on your Property!

 

[AtTheMurph]

Dave Doeheman - Sound like typical .gov, passing along their problem onto you. They don't want flooding downstream but your land can become a swamp and they're all kinds of happy about that. Really good for your property value too.

The land is a swamp. The logic is that his changes to the flow of the stream would cause other properties to become swamps that currently are not.

 

[avboiler11]

More research on this topic and discussion with my surveyor brother lead me to the concept of the "blue line stream" and discovery that USGS defines the stream on my property as an intermittent stream via a dash-and-dot blue line on topographical maps.

It in fact does not carry water "year round" as I previously wrote, I was mistaken. During dry/summer conditions water flow all but stops and isolated small pools of standing water dot the stream bed. My desire is to dig out a section of the creek bed to create a larger, deeper pool.

The 2006 Rapanos v. United States SCOTUS plurality opinion stated that ephemeral and intermittent streams are not regulated as "waters of the United States", not navigable waterways, and thustly are not regulated by the Clean Water Act.

This has been a learning experience...thanks everyone!

 

[Hardscrable]

Any time that you do anything related to water - flowing, standing, originating on your property or flowing through - know the legal aspects potentially involved and determine if you can live with any and all potential consequences...this includes potentially HUGE financial ones. Whether you think something is right or wrong doesn't matter. Because you feel that you are improving things doesn't matter. I say this as a voice of experience. Myself and many people I know have experienced this personally. Tree huggers observe and report things. Gov't officials driving down a road notice things. Neighbors report things/neighbors. Aerial pictures are now taken annually, examined, & compared to previous year's photos. Again as the voice of experience I can testify to a knock on your door happening a long time after a project's completion with a rep from a gov't agency informing you that they believe you have violated some obscure law/rule/policy/regulation that you never heard of or believe could possibly pertain to what you did on your own property. This comes along with threat of massive fines, etc. Regardless of the eventual outcome, at this point you are in for a bumpy ride.

Recent actions have actually expanded regulatory control over "waters of the U.S.". I do not know your particular situation and what your potential problems may or may not be. I am not advising you whether to do this or not. I am merely urging you to know and understand the possibilities before proceeding. The average person has absolutely no clue as to the potential can of worms that they may be opening by anything they do regarding water on their own private property.

 

[Hardscrable]

OP...your post while I was typing may or may not indicate that you have your answer. I do know of legal actions taken regarding projects that dealt with areas that did not hold water year round. Again, use caution and be sure you are on legal footing.

 

[Dirty Steve]

More research on this topic and discussion with my surveyor brother lead me to the concept of the "blue line stream" and discovery that USGS defines the stream on my property as an intermittent stream via a dash-and-dot blue line on topographical maps.

It in fact does not carry water "year round" as I previously wrote, I was mistaken. During dry/summer conditions water flow all but stops and isolated small pools of standing water dot the stream bed. My desire is to dig out a section of the creek bed to create a larger, deeper pool.

The 2006 Rapanos v. United States SCOTUS plurality opinion stated that ephemeral and intermittent streams are not regulated as "waters of the United States", not navigable waterways, and thustly are not regulated by the Clean Water Act.

This has been a learning experience...thanks everyone!

Want me to send you the letter I received from the CORPS last week on a road project stating otherwise? IDEM and the CORPS claim ephemeral streams as well. I have had to permit pipe crossing of 2" deep by 12" wide "Waters of the US" several times. Over the last 5 years I have permitted several such crossings of "Waters of the US". There is a huge court battle that has been ongoing over the last 2 years over the current far reaching definitions being applied. As it stands now, if water flows there at any time and there is a defined bed and bank, regardless of the size and whether or not you could get a boat in it or whether or not it shows up on the USGS quad, it IS "Waters of the US".

Dirty Steve

 

[avboiler11]

Somehow, I'm not surprised ACE and EPA would ignore a SCOTUS ruling...