[Scoutmaster]

If the Sacketts filled in their lots (and the court found that the Sacketts filled in 85% of their lot, I'm told by the posts above), all of the frontage toward the lake would drain to the lake. If everything drained down the road and the lobe, the road would be a ditch and the lobe would have eroded greatly. That's not apparent. Filling in the lot would be exactly like placing a large rock in the middle of a small creek.

I see no compass rose on that map, so let's use left and right. if the complaining owners' property is to the left of the Sacketts', then some portion of the water was diverted. If the complaing owners' property is to the right - and what you say is true - then by filling in their property the Sacketts prevented all of that drainage to the right of them from draining to the 'lobe.' It would hit their property like a dam and . . . flood the adjoining property. Which gets us back to the very beginning. Filling 85% of that property could cause the adjoining property to flood. A lot more than I first thought, if you're right about the lobe.

[okie01]

If everything drained down the road and the lobe, the road would be a ditch and the lobe would have eroded greatly.

Drained by the borrow ditch on the side of the road, adjacent to the swamp. Note that the area between the swamp and the road is not labelled "wetlands".

Still, I don't believe we should be arguing these fine points -- it misses the issue. Which is: SHOULD A FEDERAL AGENCY HAVE THIS KIND OF AUTHORITY, TO REGULATE MUD PUDDLES IN A SMALL COMMUNITY IN RURAL IDAHO?

I submit the answer is "No". There is evidently a local board empowered to issue a building permit. They are far more capable of judging the circumstances than is the EPA or any other federal agency.