Senator Hatch, I know there are tremendous pressures on behalf of private property rights advocates to weaken and perhaps extinguish federal laws that limit private property rights. At the same time the pressures that we are putting on our natural resource base, including wetlands are enormous. Private property rights need to be sensitive to broader needs, so that they do not seriously impair the private property of others nor greatly damage the sustainable, healthy communities we are all trying to build. Thank you for the opportunity comment. WAYNE MARTINSON, Utah Wetlands Coordinator. I n response to a growing public recognition of the importance of wetlands, a web of federal, state, and local laws and regulations have been spun to protect our remaining wetland resources. Still, although at a decreasing rate, the loss of wetlands goes on. Now, in the name of protecting private property rights, political pressure is increasing in Congress and in state capitols to weaken wetlands protection. Whatever happens in the current debates, we will continue to lose wetlands and those remaining will continue to be degraded unless more emphasis is put on proactive programs to restore critical wetlands that have been lost and better manage those chat remain. Reaching everyone's goal of no net loss and going beyond it to start recovering lost resource values will require us all to work together. Private landowners own more than 75 percent of the remaining wetlands in the lower 48 states, and many of those are partially drained and need work to restore them to their full functions and values. Just as important, they also own most of the sites where wetlands can be efficiendly restored. Federal and state agencies and numerous private organizations have initiated a variety of technical and financial assistance programs to assist private landowners to be better stewards of wetland resources. Though all of them could accomplish more with adequate funds, closer cooperation would make them all more effective in working with landowners. Landowners across the country have shown that they are willing to restore and conserve wetlands when conservation and environmental organizations and local natural resource professionals work with them to explain the value of wetlands and provide needed assistance. About 15.000 landowners have voluntarily restored approximately 500,000 acres of wetlands in the last decade, assisted by a couple of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and U.S. Department of Agriculture programs and a few state programs. More than half of this acreage was restored in cooperation with FWS's Partners for Wildlife program, where landowners receive only technical assistance and funds to cover all or part of construction costs. Throughout the country, this program is severely under In New York state, more than 1,300 landowners are on waiting lists to participate in the Partners for Wildlife program funded. In New York state, more than 1,300 landowners who have expressed interest in restoring wetlands are on waiting lists to participate in the program. In Indiana, the FWS discourages publicity about the program, as it only has funds for about 100 projects a year. If a landowner is willing to have a wetland restored without asking for payment for land rights, the public should be able to provide the resources to do the work. It is the general public that will realize most of the benefits in terms of flood control, groundwater recharge, and water quality and wildlife habitat improvements. Conservation district employees. volunteers, and the local staffs of federal and state agencies as well as some private organizations work regularly with rural landowners on a variety of natural resource issues. With proper training and resource material, they can be highly effective in delivering wetland restoration, and conservation programs to landowners who have grown to know and trust them. This column will be a regular feature of the new National Wetlands Newsletter. In each issue, I will report on and discuss what is happening across the country to facilitate the restoration and conservation of wetlands on private lands. I will discuss informational and educational programs, how differing federal and state programs are together helping landowners protect and restore wetland values; what landowners are actually accomplishing; examples of roadblocks preventing greater accomplishments, and, often, some suggestions for improvements. In the next issue, I'll report on how some states are working to better target lands accepted into the Wetland Reserve Program, as a result of the May 1995 signup, to accomplish specific stase wetland goals and objectives. As you may know, this year, landowners in all states will be eligible to offer lands for the program. I would appreciate hearing from any of you working with the Natur Resources Conservation Service on the development of state prioritization criteria. Comments, suggestions, and questions also are welcome. Please call or drop me a note. Gene Whitaker is Director of the National Wetlands Conservation Alliance, a partnership of agencies and organizations working to increase voluntary wetland restoration and conservation on private lands. A principle function of the Alliance is so help start state and local wetlands conservation alliances. Contact Gene at 409 Capital Court, N.E., Washington, D.C. 200024946; Phone: 2021547-6223; Fax: 2021 547-6450. MARCH-APRIL 1995 @ 3 (#2) JULY 11, 1991. THE PROBLEM: LOSS OF UTAH'S VALUABLE WETLANDS Summary: Utah's wetlands are critical on a State, national and international level for numerous species of birds. They also have major socioeconomic benefits such as improving water quality and providing flood protection. While Utah has lost a smaller percentage of its wetlands than most other states, it is an arid state with far less to lose. Utah's industrial and agricultural expansion coupled with population growth, are severely threatening Utah's valuable wetlands. Background: Utah now has an estimated 1 percent (or 558,000 acres) of its lands in wetlands, while the United States, lower 48 states have about 5 percent (1). Most of Utah's wetlands are associated with "several large lakes and the delta areas where the rivers enter the lake" (2). "Utah's wetlands are extensively used by migratory waterfowl, shore and wading birds, and a myriad of songbirds for breeding and as a migratory stopover for resting and feeding" (2). "The wetlands associated with the Great Salt Lake comprise 80 percent of the total wetlands in the State." The Lake has been nominated as a wetland area of international importance by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and is part of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (2). "The riverine wetlands provide a vital corridor for migratory movement of smaller birds through the arid habitats of the western States" (2). "Utah wetlands provide a vital, but generally unrecognized, function in the improvement of water quality and associated quantity, allowing its reuse. *** The value of wetland in flood control is emerging, resulting in a reduction of wetland losses and even improvement in the efforts to restore the function of wetlands by governmental entities" (2). The Problem: Utah lost an estimated 244,000 acres, or 30 percent, of its wetlands from the 1780's to the 1980's. By comparison, the lower 48 states lost an estimated 117 Million acres, or 53 percent, of its wetlands during this same time period (1). In the early days of settlement the wetlands associated with the several large lakes and delta areas "were marginal for intensive agricultural use and as such were not seriously impacted. The more ecologically productive areas were set aside as refuges. Subsequent industrial and agricultural expansion, coupled with human population growth, has resulted in encroachment on lacustrine wetland habitats and severe reductions in available water for those wetland areas, including those protected (2). The palustrine wetlands that surround the major lakes such as Utah Lake and the Great Salt Lake are faced with a threat of piecemeal degradation that has resulted from their ephemeral, intermittent appearance, causing shortsighted and inadequate application of the laws for their protection by responsible agencies" (2). "An estimated 50 to 60 percent of riparian wetlands has been lost. In urban growth areas, many of the remaining riverine wetlands are being converted to industrial or residential uses. *** Recently, field studies have identified the presence of environmental contaminants at detrimental levels in wetland areas of the Sevier River and Green River drainages. In some areas, these contaminants (e.g., selenium and boron) are affecting general wildlife production and adult survivability" (2). The National Status Summary concludes. "over a 200-year timespan, wetland acreage has diminished to the point where environmental and even socio-economic benefits (i.e.. ground water supply and water quality shoreline erosion, floodwater storage and trapping of sediments. and climatic changes) are now seriously threatened (1). REFERENCES Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Wash., D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region. July 1990. Regional Wetlands concept Plan: Emergency Wetlands Resources Act. E very American citizen has the right to own, use and enjoy private property. This right is central to our basic democratic traditions. Americans have long recognized that the security of private property ownership, and the public health and welfare require reasonable regulation of business activity and other uses of property. Today, however, certain special interest groups are promoting a radical new understanding of private property rights that would adversely affect 65 million homeowners in this country. Their goal is to distort the true meaning of traditional American property rights in order to undermine environmental laws and other regulatory programs that they oppose. Conservation and Sound environmental protection policies are entirely consistent with. and actually support, private property rights. Air and water pollution control laws, in addition to protecting public health, protect property owners from their neighbors' polluting activities. Zoning and other land use regulations preserve the beauty and stability of a neighborhood, supporting the rights of every property owner in the community. Many resources that American citizens use and enjoy - such as eceans, rivers, air, wildlife — are public resources that no company or individual has a right to exploit without regard to the broader public interest. Limitations on the disposal of hazardous wastes or restrictions on development in order to protect wildlife certainly can limit private property rights. But the public is entitled to protection of its rights to public resources. A primary goal of environmental laws is to achieve a reasonable balance between conflicting, but equally legitimate, public and private rights. In September, Republicans led by Newt Gingrich (R-GA) issued the Contract with America, a 10-point program outlining their goals for the 104th Congress. One element of this program, the so-called "Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act," includes a proposal, “Title IX. Private Property Rights Protections and Compensation," which would radically redefine traditional American property rights. Title IX would grant certain property owners the right to public payments "for any reduction in the value of property" arising from a limitation on an otherwise lawful use of property which is "measurable but not negligible." The bill defines any "reduction" in value of 10 percent or more as “not negligible." Stated differently, the bill would require taxpayers to pay whenever a public health or safety law meant that a company's profits would be 10% less than they would be if the company could simply ignore the law. The proposed bill would allow a property owner to file an administrative claim for payment from the federal government. If a property owner rejected a federal agency's offer of payment, the owner could demand binding arbitration. In addition, upon receipt of a request for payment, an agency would be required to suspend its regulatory action. In other words, for the cost of a 32 cent stamp any company or individual that objected to a regulation could block its enforcement by filing a claim under Title IX. UNDERMINING TRUE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTIONS Title IX represents a radical departure from the compensation standard for actual "takings" of private property under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The 5th Amendment guarantees that private property shall not be "taken" for public use without "just compensation." The courts have ruled that a "taking" claim must be decided based on a careful evaluation of a regulation's economic impact on the property owner, the character of the regulation, the owner's reasonable expectations at the time of purchase. and whether the regulation helps to protect neighboring property owners and the community as a whole. In contrast to the careful, balanced analysis required under the Constitution, Title LX would focus solely on the regulation's economic impact, or one property owner, and require the public to pay in a great many circumstances when no "just compensation" is due under the Constitution. On its face. Title EX would impose an enormous new burden on the federal taxpayer. Businesses subject to public regulation would receive a massive windfall at the expense of every other American. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a "property rights" bill in the last Congress which would have redefined property interests regulated under the Clean Water Act would have cost taxpayers upwards of $10 billion. Conservatively, it is fair to conclude that the Title IX would impose hundreds of billions of new costs on the federal taxpayer. Title IX are based on the extreme philosophy that citizens and their elected representatives have no role in regulating private property to protect neighboring property owners, the community, the natural environment, or future generations. These bills would actually undermine the property rights of a majority of Americans. Zoning laws, environmental regulations, and restrictions on the siting of new industry protect the property values of 65 million American homeowners. The value of a family's home is largely dependent on the health and attractiveness of the surrounding community. If the enforcement of basic laws that homeowners rely on to protect their property values were saddled with enormous new costs. homeowners would see their property values go down. By contrast, the relative handful of wealthy corporations and individuals who own the lion's share of undeveloped land in this country would benefit handsomely from Title IX. Action in 1995 Congress should reject any and all property rights legislation or amendments and rely on the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, which has effectively and fairly dealt with legitimate government takings for more than two centuries. |