Wetlands Explained

This book brings together in compact form a broad scientific and sociopolitical view of US wetlands. This primer lays out the science and policy considerations to help in navigating this branch of science that is so central to conservation policy, ecosystem science and wetland regulation. It gives explanations of the attributes, functions and values of our wetlands and shows how and why public attitudes toward wetlands have changed, and the political, legal, and social conflicts that have developed from legislation intended to stem the rapid losses of wetlands. The book describes the role of wetland science in facilitating the evolution of a rational and defensible system for regulating wetlands and will shed light on many of the problems and possibilities facing those who quest to protect and conserve our wetlands.

What Wetlands Do, and How They Do It

Those who question the wisdom of wetland regulations sometimes tell a story about a landowner who proposes to build a fine home on a tract of land that is largely wetland. This landowner lives in a region where wetlands are abundant but is denied permission to build on grounds that construction would involve filling a wetland. Because he owns considerable property, the owner moves to higher ground, clears five acres of mature upland timber, and builds his home quite legally in this way. The irony is that the mature upland timber is much scarcer locally than wetland, and the stupidity of the regulation is to have forced someone to destroy the scarcer of two resources. The names, places, and other particulars of this story vary with the teller, but there is little doubt that wetland regulation has sometimes caused an environmental loss greater than the value of the wetland that is preserved. Perhaps the landowner in the story could have been given an exemption had he only been allowed to argue the great value of mature upland forest in his particular region. As a practical matter, however, special pleading can defeat the intent of almost any regulation. Thus, the rigidity in the regulation may be justified by its need to be faithful to the general intent of the underlying law and not by a need to be rational in every case. At any rate, the story may be specious as a generalization in that the Army Corps in most cases would have granted a permit to an individual for a small wetland conversion, or the conversion would have been covered under a general permit for small conversions (chapter 1). Those who question the wisdom of wetland regulations sometimes tell a story about a landowner who proposes to build a fine home on a tract of land that is largely wetland. This landowner lives in a region where wetlands are abundant but is denied permission to build on grounds that construction would involve filling a wetland. Because he owns considerable property, the owner moves to higher ground, clears five acres of mature upland timber, and builds his home quite legally in this way.

Where We Are, and How We Got Here

English is a subtle language with many words that offer fine shades of meaning, but it also can be blunt and unequivocal. Dictionaries were not made for words such as hairdo, ballpark, or pigpen. The law, however, as practiced by Americans, can mutate the meaning of even the humblest word. If the law concerns itself with pigpens, then we must know whether a pigpen still exists when the pigs are removed and, if so, for how long. We must know if a pen originally built for cattle can become a pigpen if occupied by pigs and if pigpens are the same in all parts of the nation. In short, we must have federal guidance, regional interpretations, legal specialists, and technical authorities on pigpens. So it is with wetlands. The chapters of this book will show how troublesome the definition of wetlands has become since the federal government began regulating them. In the meantime, it will suffice to define wetlands informally as those portions of a landscape that are not permanently inundated under deep water, but are still too wet most years to be used for the cultivation of upland crops such as corn or soybeans. Wetlands, in other words, coincide pretty well with the common conception of swamps, marshes, and bogs. Government has had its hand in wetlands for about 150 years. Between the 1850s and 1970s, the federal government was intent on eliminating wetlands. Since then, it has been equally intent on preserving them. An individual who behaved in this manner would seem at least irresponsible. Many critics of federal wetland policy have in fact given the government a sound thrashing for its inconsistency, but the shift from elimination to protection of wetlands has continued nevertheless. Blaming government is the duty of a free people, and also good sport. Even so, the obvious truth about wetland regulation is that government has merely reflected a change in public attitude toward wetlands. Most Americans now believe that wetlands should be saved throughout the nation, except possibly on their own property. Americans did not always feel this way. Most European colonists of North America came from homelands that were essentially tame.