Annual Acreage Reduction as a percent of Cropland used for Crops + Government Payments as a percent of Net Farm Income THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT MAY 17, 1989 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS Establish a no overall net loss goal for wetlands in a reasonable manner. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, the National Association of Conservation Districts appreciates the opportunity to provide you with some thoughts on the interrelationships of agriculture and wetlands. NACD represents the almost 3,000 conservation districts and 17,000 men and women who sit on district governing boards. Conservation districts are an idea born at a previous time when our environment was threatened. During the Dust Bowl days, federal and state governments were struggling with how to reduce soil erosion from agricultural lands. Conservation districts were developed as units of state government, organized at the local level, and charged with developing a local program to control soil erosion. In the ensuing fifty years, district have grown to become the lead local agency in finding practical solutions to many of our resource conservation problems. The primary issue this subcommittee is exploring today is the impact of agriculture on our wetlands resources. Before I make some recommendations on how to address the agriculture/wetlands issue for the future, I want to take a moment to examine the historical record. The most recent study produced by the US Fish and Wildlife Service shows that 80% of the wetlands conversions taking place between 1955 and 1975 were due to agricultural activities. While there have been some questions raised in the past as to the accuracy of these data, NACD believes that we should accept this study as the best information available. However, in accepting that agriculture has been the largest single converter of wetlands, we are also forced to look at the reasons for these conversions to truly understand why the industry has had such an impact on wetlands. National Association of Conservation Districts Dating back 200 years ago to the inaguration of our first President, this country and its citizens have relied on our land and natural resources to fuel our national growth and economic health. Throughout most of our national history, we have looked on wetlands as "waste" areas, not adding to our country's wealth. This line of thinking resulted in government policies that encouraged farmers to convert wetlands to some "productive" use. We provided the agricultural community with money and technical assitance to drain individual sites. We developed large-scale watershed projects to turn vast areas of wetlands into land capable of producing crops. We covered up wetlands with resevoirs to harness floodwaters and to provide steady water sources. We built dikes and channels to foster use of rivers as transportation corridors without considering direct and indirect impacts on the wetlands resources. At the time, all of these activities were part of national priorities to increase the productiveness of our land resources. Then we became better educated as a whole. We began to realize the wetlands were in themselves a means to reduce flooding damages. We came to understand that many of our wildlife and fishery resources depended on wetlands to exist in abundance. We now understand that wetlands are an integral part to watershed hydrology for their ability to cleanse the surface waters and replenish groundwater. This new knowledge and understanding did not come over night, but grew over time. In our world today, we now understand that we need to provide protection to wetlands resources. question that we now face is how to accomplish this protection. SETTING A NATIONAL GOAL OF NO OVERAL NET-LOSS OF WETLANDS The Our first step, as outlined in the Report of the National Wetlands Policy Forum, is to begin today to slow, then stop, and finally to reverse the trend in declining wetlands resources. NACD supports this goal, yet also we know that it will not be accomplished today or even tommorrow. We have spent two hundered years to get were we are today in terms of wetlands resources. A first step to reaching our final goal of increasing wetlands resources will be to bury the past. I don't mean to forget that we made mistakes in our national handling of wetlands, but rather to admit that hindsight allows us to better understand wetlands management and to provide direction for the future. NACD believes that we use today as our starting point of a new and enlightened era of wetlands management. We do not benefit from continuing to try and assign blame for past activities. We will benefit from learning our history lesson and applying it to the future. NACD also strongly believes, as stated in the National Wetlands Forum Report, that establishing a "no overall net-loss" goal does not mean that every existing wetland is untouchable. We are going to have continued losses from natural causes. Because wetlands work as natural silt traps, we can assume that some will become filled up in the future. In addition, there will continue to be national, state, and local priorities that may out-weigh protection of a specific wetland. Our goal should be to recognize that these conversions will occur, but that our goal will be to ensure that the amount is reduced and that conversions will be compensated for. As a first step, NACD believes that the federal government, in partnership with state and local governments and private organizations, needs to accelerate a wetlands research and education program. The research program will need to address our technology for replacing lost wetlands. This could be accomplished through both restoration of previously converted areas or creation of new wetlands areas. Until the technology for these activities is developed, there is no way we can possibly reach an equilibrium status let alone an increase in wetlands resources. Once the technology is developed, it will have to be put into the hands of the people who can utilize it the land managers. We will have to develop technical guidelines and methodologies that will allow land managers to actually do the restoration and creation projects. PROVIDING INCENTIVES FOR WETLANDS PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT Of the almost 100 million acres of wetlands in this country, approximately two thirds are in private ownership. This situation sets up a natural conflict. Wetlands are seen as resources valued by the public for their myriad values, yet their management is dependent on individual private land owners. We have the public calling for wetlands protection and the private land owner asking who is to pay for providing this resource. The private sector is asking if they must bear the full cost of providing a public resource. NACD does not believe that the simple solution lies in stricter regulation of land uses. While Section 404 permits have in all liklihood slowed conversions since passage of those amendments, they have not been able to halt all wetlands conversions. Even if some of the questions involving Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over isolated wetlands are resolved by Congress, there remains the problem of physically enforcing a regulatory program on 100 million acres of wetlands spread throughout the country. Instead, NACD believes that we, public and private sectors, need to work together to develop and make available incentives that encourage proper stewardship of wetlands resources. Perhaps the most obvious answer in the incentive arena is direct payments to the land owner in return for guarenteed protection of the wetland. There has been a great deal of talk, including a recommendation from the Wetlands Policy Forum, of establishing a land rental program similar to the Waterbank or Conservation Reserve Programs to protect wetlands. One major difference would be that annual payments would apply toward purchase of a permanent easement as opposed to ten-year contracts. However, this approach presents some problems that are significant. How do we determine the value of each wetland? There are some estimates that about 50% of the waterfowl in this country are dependent on 5.3 million acres of pothole wetlands for their continued survival. At the same time, the Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that duck hunters spent over $600 million on their sport in 1980. Does that mean that the 5.3 million acres of prairie potholes is worth $300 million or $60 per acre every year? And if that is the value we assign to these wetlands, who is willing to pay this fee to land Owners every year? This figure reflects only waterfowl hunting values and does not count the additional values such as flood protection and ground water recharge. So we are still left with the question as to what is the value of each acre of wetlands? Additionally, we'll need to figure out a way to make this value available to the land owners in a useable form. I will assume for today's purposes that some type of easement rental or purchase program will be developed to provide some of the incentives for wetlands protection. However, we know that fiscal constraints will make it impossible to protect every wetland through purchase of easements. I want to take a moment to explore some other, less obvious sources of protection incentives. Earlier I talked about developing the technical expertise to provide a means to restore and create wetlands. That expertise is in itself an incentive to protect wetlands. To illustrate, let me use a real-life example from the prairie pothole region of North Dakota. There are many depressions that hold water for a week to ten days longer than the rest of the field. To wildlife experts, they ephemeral wetlands important to migrating waterfowl. To the farmer, these are nusance wet spots which cause havoc and delay at planting time. Now, in addition to the traditional management problems created by these areas, they are causing problems with meeting soil conservation requirements. You see, this farmer is supposed to implement a reduced tillage system on the fields to reduce wind erosion to required levels. To implement this system effectively, the wet areas must be drained. Now this farmer is faced with three options. One, drain the wet spot and apply the reduced tillage management system. The farmer will then be out of compliance Swampbuster but meet conservation compliance requirements. Two, this farmer protects the wetland and does not put the reduced tillage system in place. Again, out of compliance. Thirdly, this farmer can protect the wet area, and introduce the reduced tillage system. While he meets compliance requirements, the crop does poorly and he suffers financially. However, if we give this farmer the option of recreating this ephemeral wetland at the edge of the field, he could protect the wetland, meet conservation compliance requirements, and ease his land managment problems. In order to allow this option, we need not only the technology, but also the regulatory freedom to manage our resources correctly and efficiently. This is but one example of incentives needed to protect wetlands in private ownership. We need to look closely at tort liability laws, income tax law, property tax law, federal farm programs, etc. NACD believes the incentives are out there that will encourage the farmer to protect wetlands. We simpley need to enact them into law and make them available to the people who hold title to wetlands. DEVELOPING STATE AND LOCAL WETLANDS PROTECTION PROGRAMS The last recommendation NACD has is to vest the states with the wetlands protection authority. Current federal efforts, predominately the Section 404 permit program, have had limited success in either protecting the resources or meeting the needs of the land owner. Part of the problem lies in confusing and inconsistant application of the regulations. Section 404 currently has two federal agencies, with hardly compatable missions, charged with administering the program. EPA and the Corps of Engineers have spent years and untold manhours attempting to come to a common agreement on operation of the program. Yet, for all of this effort they still appear to be far apart on |