Wetland Loss/ Status Report
January 17, 2001 Farm Bill Network e-mail List Discussion Summary
By Amy Papenfuss and Wendy Dickie, umbsn@smumn.edu
In this discussion, participants cited two court rulings that may affect conservation and restoration of wetlands. These court rulings essentially take jurisdiction over wetlands from some government entities and give it to others. Participants also discussed wetland replacement and lost functions, emphasizing that restoration of wetlands is preferable to re-creation of wetlands, and that the ideal goal for wetland replacement is no net loss. Following are the highlights from the discussion:
· To my knowledge, mitigated acreage is required to replace wetland functional loss usually when wildlife impacts are of specific concern. Particularly where an endangered/listed species is involved, and where "x" acres of habitat is lost and the same, or more, acreage is replaced based on the known habitat requirements of the species. Replacing lost functions, including how much acreage should be involved, remains a challenge.
· The Dennis King "discounting" method mentioned by Ralph Heimlich has both merit and logic on its side. Unfortunately, the core of the method, wetland function, is neither easy to quantify or singular in method of quantification.
· Physically creating a wetland is often less successful than restoring one.
· The NRCS initiated a pilot in 1999 to investigate a means of monitoring functional condition of wetlands on agricultural lands.
A man was driving along one day, minding his own business. In time he came to a familiar stop sign on a lazy street corner. The man applied his breaks to slow down, but saw no benefit in wasting time coming to a complete stop, so he slowly went on through the stop sign. Upon seeing this, a police officer turned on his lights and siren and pulled the man over. After the normal routine of questions from behind dark glasses, the officer began writing a ticket. While he was writing the man began to complain to the officer arguing that he had looked both ways, that there was no one coming, and that he had slowed down. Frustrated and angry, the officer pulled the man from his vehicle, threw him to the ground, and began hitting him with his nightstick. After a while, the officer asked the man a pointed question, “So sir, would you like me to stop, or just slow down?”
Although it is heartening that wetland losses have slowed somewhat, I kind of wish we would just stop! A “no-net-loss” thought for the day, Steve
How ironic that virtually the same day that these encouraging reports are released, the Supreme Court seemingly ruled that the Army Corp does not have jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. In Wisconsin, that would amount to 70-80% of our remaining wetlands and could conceivably lead to accelerate draining and filling of wetlands. Of course everyone is scrambling to see what that Supreme Court ruling really means, but it appears to significantly limit the scope of the Clean Water Act. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/courts/A36408-2001Jan9.html
Court Limits Clean Water Act Scope you had better read this. This will significantly change the federal regulatory approach to wetlands and leave much of this with the states.
Tuesday January 9 10:48 AM ET
Court Limits Clean Water Act Scope
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer, WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court's conservative majority continued its gradual erosion of federal powers over the states Monday with an important ruling limiting the scope of a landmark environmental law. The court ruled 5-4 that the federal Clean Water Act should not prevent a group of suburban Chicago localities from building a landfill atop seasonal ponds used by migrating birds. The court found that the federal government did not have the power to stop the proposed landfill, but the justices stopped short of overturning part of the massive 1972 environmental law. The landfill would be built atop abandoned gravel pits that are now filled with water and used as migratory bird habitat. Congress did not intend the Clean Water Act to cover such small bodies of water, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority. Likewise, a 1986 refinement of the environmental law that deals specifically with the needs of migratory birds does not give the federal government such control, he added. ``Permitting the (government) to claim federal jurisdiction over ponds and mudflats,'' such as those in the Illinois case, ``would also result in a significant impingement of the states' traditional and primary power over land and water use,'' Rehnquist wrote. For the last five years, the 5-4 majority has ruled that the commerce clause does not apply to non-economic activity inside a state's borders. The Illinois case concerns a group of local governments that want to build a landfill on about 500 acres near Chicago, including about 17 acres classified as wetlands. The Clean Water Act requires a permit from the Corps of Engineers for landfills affecting ``waters of the United States,'' including lakes, wetlands and ponds. The local Illinois governments first requested a permit from the federal government in 1986, and have fought the case ever since. The landfill authority claims that the federal Army Corps of Engineers lacks jurisdiction in the case, since the pools do not really connect with any interstate waterway. The Clinton administration backed the Army Corps in the case. A federal judge ruled for the government, and the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news) agreed. The case is Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 99-1178.