Wetlands: An Overview of Issues

Order Code RL33483 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Updated November 25, 2008 Claudia Copeland Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy Resources, Science, and Industry DivisionJuly 12, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL33483 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Summary The 110th Congress, like earlier ones, Summary Recent Congresses have considered numerous policy topics that involve wetlands. A few of the topics were new to this Congress, such as wetlands provisions in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246), while most were examined but not resolved in earlier Congresses, such as applying federal regulations on private lands, wetland loss rates, and restoration and creation accomplishments. The 110th involve wetlands. Many reflect issues of long-standing interest, such as applying federal regulations on private lands, wetland loss rates, and restoration and creation accomplishments. In the 110th Congress, a few of the topics were new, such as wetlands provisions in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246). The 110th Congress also considered wetland topics at the program level, responding to legal decisions and administrative actions affecting the jurisdictional boundary limits of the federal wetland permit program in the Clean Water Act (CWA). Perhaps the issue receiving the greatest attention washas been determining which wetlands should be included and excluded from permit requirements under the CWA’s regulatory program, as a result of Supreme Court rulings in 2001 (in the SWANCC case) that narrowed federal regulatory jurisdiction over certain isolated wetlands, and in June 2006 (in the Rapanos-Carabell decision) that left the jurisdictional reach of the permit program to be determined on a case-by-case basis. In the 110th Congress, House and Senate committees held hearings on legislation intended to reverse the Court’s rulings (H.R. 2421, S. 1870). Wetland protection efforts continue to engender intense controversy over issues of science and policy. Controversial topics include the rate and pattern of loss, whether all wetlands should be protected in a single fashion, the effectiveness of the current suite of laws in protecting them, and the fact that 75% of remaining U.S. wetlands are located on private lands. One reason for these controversies is that wetlands occur in a wide variety of physical forms, and the numerous values they provide, such as wildlife habitat, also vary widely. In addition, the total wetland acreage in the lower 48 states is estimated to have declined from more than 220 million acres three centuries ago to 107.7 million acres in 2004. The national policy goal of no net loss, endorsed by administrations for the past two decades, has been reached, according to the Fish and response, legislation intended to reverse the Court’s rulings in these cases has been introduced regularly since the 107th Congress. In the 111th Congress, for the first time, one such bill has been approved by a congressional committee (S. 787, the Clean Water Restoration Act). The Obama Administration has not endorsed any specific legislation, but has identified general principles for legislation that would clarify waters protected by the CWA. Wetland protection efforts continue to engender controversy over issues of science and policy. Controversial topics include the rate and pattern of loss, whether all wetlands should be protected in a single fashion, the effectiveness of the current suite of laws in protecting them, and the fact that 75% of remaining U.S. wetlands are located on private lands. Many recent public and private efforts have sought to mitigate damage to wetlands and to protect them through acquisition, restoration, and enhancement, particularly coastal wetlands. The 3.4 million acres of marsh, swamp, forests, and barrier islands in coastal Louisiana constitute the largest wetland complex in the lower 48 states and are important spawning grounds for fish and shellfish, as well as habitat for migratory birds. The state’s wetlands have been weakened by flood control and other engineering projects that have altered water flow and led to erosion of land. These areas were damaged by hurricanes in 2005 and now are threatened by oil from the April 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico, as are other coastal wetlands in the Gulf. One reason for controversies about wetlands is that they occur in a wide variety of physical forms, and the numerous values they provide, such as wildlife habitat, also vary widely. In addition, the total wetland acreage in the lower 48 states is estimated to have declined from more than 220 million acres three centuries ago to 107.7 million acres in 2004. The national policy goal of no net loss, endorsed by administrations for the past two decades, has been reached, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service, as the rate of loss has been more than offset by net gains through expanded restoration efforts authorized in multiple laws. Many protection advocates say that net gains do not necessarily account for the changes in quality of the remaining wetlands, and many also view federal protection efforts as inadequate or uncoordinated. Others, who advocate the rights of property owners and development interests, characterize them as too intrusive. Numerous state and local wetland programs add to the complexity of the protection effort. Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Wetlands: Science and Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 What Is a Wetland? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 What Functional Values Are Provided by Wetlands? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 How Fast Are Wetlands Disappearing, and How Many Acres Are Left? . . . 4 Selected Federal Wetlands Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The Clean Water Act Section 404 Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The Permitting Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Nationwide Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Section 404 Judicial Proceedings: SWANCC and Rapanos . . . . . . . . . 9 Should All Wetlands Be Treated Equally? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Agriculture and Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Swampbuster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Other Agricultural Wetlands Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Agricultural Wetlands and the Section 404 Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Private Property Rights and Landowner Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Wetland Restoration and Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 The Louisiana Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Other Federal Protection Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Introduction Wetlands, with a variety of physical characteristics, are found throughout the country. They are known in different regions as swamps, marshes, fens, potholes, playa lakes, or bogs. Although these places can differ greatly, they all have distinctive plant and animal assemblages because of the wetness of the soil. Some wetland areas may be continuously inundated by water, while other areas may not be flooded at all. In coastal areas, flooding may occur daily as tides rise and fall. Prior to the mid-1980s, federal laws and policies to protect wetlands were generally limited to providing habitat for migratory waterfowl, especially ducks and geese. Some laws encouraged destruction of wetland areas, including selected provisions in the federal tax code, public works legislation, and farm programs. Since the mid-1980s, the values of wetlands have been recognized in different ways in numerous national policies, and federal laws either encourage wetland protection, or prohibit or do not support their destruction. These laws, however, do not add up to a fully consistent or comprehensive national approach. The central federal regulatory program, found in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, requires permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into many but not all wetland areas. However, other activities that may adversely affect wetlands do not require permits, and some places that scientists define as wetlands are exempt from this permit program because of physical characteristics or the type of activity that takes place. One agricultural program, Swampbuster, is a disincentive program that indirectly protects wetlands by making farmers who drain wetlands ineligible for federal farm program benefits; those who do not receive these benefits (56% of all farmers received no federal farm payments of any kind in 2006) have no reason to observe the requirements of this program. Numerous other acquisition, protection, and restoration programs complete the current federal effort. Although numerous wetland protection bills have been introduced in recent Congresses, the most significant new wetlands legislation to be enacted has been in farm bills, in 1996, 2002, and 2008. During this period, Congress also reauthorized several wetlands programs, mostly setting higher appropriations ceilings, without making significant shifts in policy. The Bush Administration endorsed wetland protection in legislation, such as the farm bill and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act reauthorization, and at events, such as Earth Day presentations. The Bush Administration also issued guidance on mitigation policies and regulatory program jurisdiction; the latter has been controversial (see discussion below). Congress has provided a forum in numerous hearings where conflicting interests in wetland issues have been debated. These debates encompass disparate scientific CRS-2 and programmatic questions, and conflicting views of the role of government where private property is involved. Broadly speaking, the conflicts are between: ! Environmental interests and wetland protection advocates who have been pressing for greater wetlands protection as multiple values have been more widely recognized, by improving coordination and consistency among agencies and levels of governments, and strengthened programs; and ! Others, including landowners, farmers, and small businessmen, who counter that protection efforts have gone too far, by aggressively protecting privately owned wet areas that provide few wetland values. They have been especially critical of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), asserting that they administer the Section 404 program in an overzealous and inflexible manner. Wetland legislative activity in the 110th Congress centered broadly on two issues. One was on wetlands conservation provisions in the 2008 farm bill, which was enacted in June 2008 (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110246). The new law reauthorizes and increases the acreage enrollment cap in the wetlands reserve program, with a goal of enrolling 250,000 acres annually, and extends provisions to enroll up to a million acres of wetlands and buffers in the Conservation Reserve Program. Other agricultural conservation programs, while lacking explicit wetlands protection provisions, are still likely to be beneficial to wetlands. The second major area of legislative interest centered on proposals to reverse Supreme Court rulings that addressed and narrowed the scope of geographic jurisdiction of wetlands regulations under the Clean Water Act. This interest arises because federal courts have played a key role in interpreting and clarifying the limits of federal jurisdiction to regulate activities that affect wetlands, especially since a 2001 Supreme Court ruling in the so-called SWANCC decision and a 2006 ruling in Rapanos v. United States. House and Senate committees held hearings on legislation intended to reverse the SWANCC and Rapanos rulings (H.R. 2421, S. 1870 — the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act). Wetlands: Science and Information Scientific questions about wetlands, with answers that can be important to policy makers, include how to define wetlands; how to catalogue the rate and pattern of wetland declines and losses as well as restorations and increases; and how to assess the importance of wetland changes to broader ecosystems. Wetlands science has made considerable strides in developing a fuller and more sophisticated knowledge about many aspects of wetlands in the more than two decades since CRS-3 protecting wetlands became a general policy goal in federal law and program administration.1 Two topics where scientific information and wetland protection policies remain inconsistent continue to be: should all regulated wetlands be treated equally; and if all scientifically-defined wetlands are not covered by the federal regulatory program, what subset should be covered, and how should such decisions be made? While discussion of either question has major science elements, both are primarily addressed in the section below about the Clean Water Act Section 404 program. What Is a Wetland? Scientists generally agree that the presence of a wetland can be determined by a combination of soils, plants, and hydrology. The only definition of wetlands in law, in the swampbuster provisions of farm legislation (P.L. 99-198) and in the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-645), lists those three components. This definition does not include more specific criteria, such as exactly what conditions must be present and for how long, thus leaving interpretation to scientists and regulators on a case-by-case basis. Controversies are exacerbated when many sites that have those three components and are identified as wetlands by experts, either may have wetland characteristics only some portion of the time, or may not look like what many people visualize as wetlands. Also, many of these sites have been directly or indirectly modified by human activities that diminish their appearance (and their ability to perform wetland functions). Wetlands currently subject to federal regulation are a large subset of all places that members of the scientific community would call a wetland. These regulated wetlands, under the Section 404 program discussed below, are currently identified using technical criteria in a wetland delineation manual issued by the Corps in 1987. This manual was prepared jointly and is used by all federal agencies to carry out their responsibilities under this program (the Corps, EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)). It provides guidance and field-level consistency for the agencies that have roles in wetland regulatory protection. (A second and slightly different manual, agreed to by the Corps and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), is used for delineating wetlands on agricultural lands.) While the agencies try to improve the objectivity and consistency of wetland identification and delineation, judgment continues to play a role and can lead to site-specific controversies. Cases discussed below (see “Section 404 Judicial Proceedings: SWANCC and Rapanos”) center on whether wetlands should be included or exempted from the regulatory program in certain circumstances, such as the physical setting. 1 Two places to view some of the changes in scientific knowledge and understanding are through the products of the Society of State Wetlands Managers [http://www.aswm.org] and the Society of Wetland Scientists [http://www.sws.org]. CRS-4 What Functional Values Are Provided by Wetlands? Functional values, both ecological and economic, at each wetland depend on its location, size, and relationship to adjacent land and water areas. Many of these values have been recognized only recently. Historically, many federal programs encouraged wetlands to be drained or altered because they were seen as having little value as wetlands (for example, flood protection programs of the Corps and Department of Agriculture have modified or eliminated many flood plain wetlands through alterations of the hydraulic/hydrologic regime). Wetland values can include: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! habitat for aquatic birds and other animals and plants, including numerous threatened and endangered species; production of fish and shellfish; water storage, including mitigating the effects of floods and droughts; water purification; recreation; timber production; food production; education and research; and open space and aesthetic values. Usually wetlands provide some combination of these values; single wetlands rarely provide all of these values. The composite value typically declines when wetlands are altered. In addition, the effects of alteration often extend well beyond the immediate area, because wetlands are usually part of a larger water system. For example, conversion of wetlands to urban uses has increased flood damages; this value has received considerable attention as the costs of natural disaster costs mounted since the 1990s. How Fast Are Wetlands Disappearing, and How Many Acres Are Left? A number of reports document recent changes in wetland acres. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service periodically surveys national net trends in wetland acreage using the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). It has estimated that when European settlers first arrived, wetland acreage in the area that would become the 48 states was more than 220 million acres, or about 5% of the total land area. According to its most recent report, issued in 2006, by 2004, total wetland acreage was estimated to be 107.7 million acres, according to data it presented in its most recent survey.2 Data compiled by the NRCS and the FWS in separate surveys and using different methodologies have identified similar trends. Both show that the annual net loss rate dropped from almost 500,000 acres annually nearly three decades ago to 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coterminus United States, 1998 - 2004, March 2006, 110 pp. This is the most recent of several reports by the Inventory over the past 25 years, which document wetlands trends at both a national and regional scale. CRS-5 slight net annual gains in recent years. The FWS survey estimated that the average annual gain between 1998 and 2004 was 32,000 acres, while NRCS (using its Natural Resources Inventory of privately-owned lands) estimated that there was an average annual gain of 26,000 acres between 1997 and 2002.3 NRCS cautioned against making precise claims of net increases because of statistical uncertainties. Some environmentalists caution that the increases identified in the latest FWS data are tied to a proliferation of small, shallow ponds rather than natural wetlands. In 2002, the Bush Administration endorsed the concept of “no-net-loss” of wetlands — a goal declared by President George H. W. Bush in 1988 and also embraced by President Clinton to balance wetlands losses and gains in the short term and achieve net gains in the long term. On Earth Day 2004, President Bush announced a new national goal, moving beyond no-net-loss, of achieving an overall increase of wetlands.4 The goal was to create, improve, and protect at least three million wetland acres over the next five years in order to increase overall wetland acres and quality. (By comparison, the Clinton Administration in 1998 announced policies intended to achieve overall wetland increases of 200,000 acres per year by 2005.) The President’s strategy also called for better tracking of wetland programs and enhanced local and private sector collaboration. In April 2008, the Administration issued a report saying that more than 3.6 million acres of wetlands had been restored, protected, or improved as part of the President’s program to create, improve and protect wetlands since April 2004, and that the number will climb to 4.5 million acres by the original date set by that program — Earth Day 2009.5 The report documents gains, but not offsetting loses. It summarizes accomplishments for each federal wetland conservation program. Environmental groups criticized the report as presenting an incomplete picture, because it fails to mention wetlands lost to agriculture and development. Numerous shifts in federal policies since 1985 (and changes in economic conditions as well) strongly influence wetland loss patterns, but the composite effects remain unmeasured beyond these raw numbers. There usually is a large time lag from the announcement and implementation of changes in policy to collection and release of data that measure how these changes affect loss rates. Also, it is often very difficult to distinguish the role that policy changes play from other factors, such as agricultural markets, development pressures, and land markets. Further, these data only measure acres. This may have been appropriate two decades ago when scientists knew less about how to measure the specific functions and values found in wetlands. By providing data limited to number of acres, these data provide few insights into changes in their quality, as measured by the values they provide, which is often determined by factors such as where a wetland is located in 3 Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Resources Inventory; 2002 Annual NRI (Wetlands). See [http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/2003/nri03wetlands.html]. 4 5 See [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040422-1.html]. Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality, Conserving America’s Wetlands 2008: Four Years of Progress Implementing the President’s Goal, April 2008. CRS-6 a watershed, and what are the surrounding land uses. Nevertheless, in his Earth Day 2004 wetlands announcement (discussed above), President Bush said that as the nation is nearing the goal of no-net-loss, it is appropriate to move towards policies that will result in a net increase of wetland acres and quality. Selected Federal Wetlands Programs Federal program issues include the administration of programs to protect, restore, or mitigate wetland resources (especially the Clean Water Act Section 404 program); relationships between agricultural and regulatory programs; whether all wetlands should be treated the same in federal programs, and which wetlands should be subject to regulation; and whether protecting wetlands by acres is an effective proxy for protecting wetlands based on the functions they perform and the values they provide. In addition, private property questions are raised, because almost three-quarters of the remaining wetlands are located on private lands. Some property owners believe that they should be compensated when federal programs limit how they can use their land, and for decisions that arguably diminish the value of the land. The Clean Water Act Section 404 Program The principal federal program that provides regulatory protection for wetlands is found in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Its intent is to protect water and adjacent wetland areas from adverse environmental effects due to discharges of dredged or fill material. Enacted in 1972, Section 404 requires landowners or developers to obtain permits from the Corps of Engineers to carry out activities involving disposal of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The Corps has long had regulatory jurisdiction over dredging and filling, starting with the River and Harbor Act of 1899. The Corps and EPA share responsibility for administering the Section 404 program. Other federal agencies, including NRCS, FWS, and NMFS, also have roles in this process. In the 1970s, legal decisions in key cases led the Corps to revise this program to incorporate broad jurisdictional definitions in terms of both regulated waters and adjacent wetlands. Section 404 was last amended in 1977. This judicial/regulatory/administrative evolution of the Section 404 program has generally pleased those who view it as a critical tool in wetland protection, but dismayed others who would prefer more limited Corps jurisdiction or who see the expanded regulatory program as intruding on private land-use decisions and treating wetlands of widely varying value similarly. Underlying this debate is the more general question of whether Section 404 is the best approach to federal wetland protection. Some wetland protection advocates have proposed that it be replaced or greatly altered. First, they point out that it governs only the discharge of dredged or fill material, while not regulating other acts that drain, flood, or otherwise reduce functional values. Second, because of exemptions provided in 1977 amendments to CRS-7 Section 404, major categories of activities are not required to obtain permits. These include normal, ongoing farming, ranching, and silvicultural (forestry) activities. Further, permits generally are not required for activities which drain wetlands (only for those that fill wetlands), which excludes a large number of actions with potential to alter wetlands. Third, in the view of protection advocates, the multiple values that wetlands can provide (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, flood control) are not effectively recognized through a statutory approach based principally on water quality, despite the broad objectives of the Clean Water Act. The Permitting Process. The Corps’ regulatory process involves both general permits for actions by private landowners that are similar in nature and will likely have a minor effect on wetlands and individual permits for more significant actions. According to the Corps, it evaluates more than 85,000 permit requests annually. Of those, more than 90% are authorized under a general permit, which can apply regionally or nationwide, and is essentially a permit by rule, meaning the proposed activity is presumed to have a minor impact, individually and cumulatively. Most general permits do not require pre-notification or prior approval by the Corps. About 9% of all permits are required to go through the more detailed evaluation for a standard individual permit, which may involve complex proposals or sensitive environmental issues and can take 180 days or longer for a decision. Less than 0.3% of permits are denied; most other individual permits are modified or conditioned before issuance. About 5% of applications are withdrawn prior to a permit decision. In FY2003 (the most recent year for which data are available), Corps-issued permits authorized activities having a total of 21,330 acres of wetland impact, while those permits required that 43,379 acres of wetlands be restored, created, or enhanced as mitigation for the authorized losses.6 Regulatory procedures on individual permits allow for interagency review and comment, a coordination process that can generate delays and an uncertain outcome, especially for environmentally controversial projects. EPA is the only federal agency having veto power over a proposed Corps permit; EPA has used its veto authority fewer than a dozen times in the 30-plus years since the program began. However, critics have charged that implied threats of delay by the FWS and others practically amount to the same thing. Reforms during the Reagan, earlier Bush, and Clinton Administrations streamlined certain of these procedures, with the intent of speeding up and clarifying the Corps’ full regulatory program, but concerns continue over both process and program goals. Controversy also surrounded revised regulations issued by EPA and the Corps in May 2002, which redefine two key terms in the 404 program: “fill material” and “discharge of fill material.” The agencies said that the revisions were intended to clarify certain confusion in their joint administration of the program due to previous differences in how the two agencies defined those terms. However, environmental groups contended that the changes allow for less restrictive and inadequate regulation of certain disposal activities, including disposal of coal mining waste, which could be harmful to aquatic life in streams. The Senate Environment and Public Works 6 U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, “Regulatory Statistics, All Permit Decisions, FY2003.” See [http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/2003webcharts.pdf]. CRS-8 Committee held a hearing in June 2002 to review these issues, and legislation was introduced to reverse the agencies’ action by clarifying in the law that fill material cannot be composed of waste, but no further action occurred.7 Similar legislation was introduced in the 108th and 109th Congresses, and was again introduced in the 110th Congress (H.R. 2169, the Clean Water Protection Act). Nationwide Permits. Nationwide permits are a key means by which the Corps minimizes the burden of its regulatory program. A nationwide permit is a form of general permit which authorizes a category of activities throughout the nation and is valid only if the conditions applicable to the permit are met. These general permits authorize activities that are similar in nature and are judged to cause only minimal adverse effect on the environment, individually and cumulatively. General permits minimize the burden of the Corps’ regulatory program by authorizing landowners to proceed without having to obtain individual permits in advance. The current program has few strong supporters, for differing reasons. Developers say that it is too complex and burdened with arbitrary restrictions. Environmentalists say that it does not adequately protect aquatic resources. At issue is whether the program has become so complex and expansive that it cannot either protect aquatic resources or provide for a fair regulatory system, which are its dual objectives. Nationwide permits are issued for periods of no longer than five years and thereafter must be reissued by the Corps. On March 12, 2007, the Corps issued a package of nationwide permits, replacing those that had been in effect since 2002. The 2007 permits establish six new nationwide permits (for a total of 49) and also revise a number of existing permits and general terms and conditions that apply to all nationwide permits.8 Citizen groups have filed lawsuits seeking to halt the Corps’ use of one of its nationwide permits, NWP 21, to authorize a type of coal mining practice called mountaintop mining. These critics contend that the adverse environmental impacts of activities authorized by NWP 21 are far greater than the “minimal adverse effects” limits prescribed by the Clean Water Act for all nationwide permits. In 2004, a federal district court in West Virginia ruled that NWP 21 violates the CWA by authorizing activities that have more than minimal adverse environmental effects. The district court’s ruling was overturned on appeal. Another lawsuit challenging the applicability of nationwide permits to mountaintop mining in Kentucky also has been filed and is pending.9 Section 404 authorizes states to assume many of the Corps’ permitting responsibilities. Two states have done this: Michigan (in 1984) and New Jersey (in 7 For additional information, see CRS Report RL31411, Controversies over Redefining “Fill Material” Under the Clean Water Act, by Claudia Copeland. 8 U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Reissuance of Nationwide Permits; Notice,” 72 Federal Register 11091-11198, March 12, 2007. 9 For background, see CRS Report RS21421, Mountaintop Mining: Background on Current Controversies, by Claudia Copeland. CRS-9 1992). Others have cited the complex process of assumption, the anticipated cost of running a program, and the continued involvement of federal agencies because of statutory limits on waters that states could regulate as reasons for not joining these two states. Efforts continue to encourage more states to assume program responsibility. Section 404 Judicial Proceedings: SWANCC and Rapanos. The Section 404 program has been the focus of numerous lawsuits, most of which have sought to narrow the geographic scope of the regulatory program. SWANCC. An issue of long-standing controversy is whether isolated waters are properly within the jurisdiction of Section 404. Isolated waters (those that lack a permanent surface outlet to downstream waters) which are not physically adjacent to navigable surface waters often appear to provide few of the values for which wetlands are protected, even if they meet the technical definition of a wetland. In January 2001, the Supreme Court ruled on the question of whether the CWA provides the Corps and EPA with authority over isolated waters and wetlands. The Court’s 5-4 ruling in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159) held that the denial of a Section 404 permit for disposal on isolated wetlands solely on the basis that migratory birds use the site exceeds the authority provided in the CWA. The full extent of retraction of the regulatory program resulting from this decision remains unclear, even more than seven years after the ruling. Environmentalists believe that the Court misinterpreted congressional intent on the matter, while industry and landowner groups welcomed the ruling.10 Policy implications of how much the decision restricts federal regulation depend on how broadly or narrowly the opinion is applied, and since the 2001 Court decision, other federal courts have issued a number of rulings that have reached varying conclusions. Some federal courts have interpreted SWANCC narrowly, thus limiting its effect on current permit rules, while a few read the decision more broadly. Attorneys for industry and developers say that the courts will remain the primary battleground for CWA jurisdiction questions, so long as neither the Administration nor Congress takes steps to define jurisdiction. The government’s view on the key question of the scope of CWA jurisdiction in light of SWANCC and other court rulings came in a legal memorandum issued jointly by EPA and the Corps in January 2003.11 It provides a legal interpretation essentially based on a narrow reading of the Court’s decision, thus allowing federal regulation of some isolated waters to continue (in cases where factors other than the presence of migratory birds may exist, thus allowing for assertion of federal jurisdiction), but it calls for more review by higher levels in the agencies in such cases. Administration press releases said that the guidance demonstrates the government’s commitment to “no-net-loss” wetlands policy. However, it was 10 For additional information, see CRS Report RL30849, The Supreme Court Addresses Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction Over ‘Isolated Waters’: The SWANCC Decision, by Robert Meltz and Claudia Copeland. 11 See [http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/Joint_Memo.pdf]. CRS-10 apparent that the issues remained under discussion, because at the same time, the Administration issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comment on how to define waters that are under the regulatory program’s jurisdiction. The ANPRM did not actually propose rule changes, but it indicated possible ways that Clean Water Act rules might be modified to further limit federal jurisdiction, building on SWANCC and some of the subsequent legal decisions. The government received more than 133,000 comments on the ANPRM, most of them negative, according to EPA and the Corps. Environmentalists and many states opposed changing any rules, saying that the law and previous court rulings call for the broadest possible interpretation of the Clean Water Act (and narrow interpretation of SWANCC), but developers sought changes to clarify interpretation of the SWANCC ruling. In December 2003, EPA and the Corps announced that the Administration would not pursue rule changes concerning federal regulatory jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. The EPA Administrator said that the Administration wanted to avoid a contentious and lengthy rulemaking debate over the issue. Nonetheless, interest groups on all sides have been critical of confusion in implementing the 2003 guidance, which constitutes the main tool for interpreting the reach of the SWANCC decision. Environmentalists remain concerned about diminished protection resulting from the guidance, while developers said that without a new rule, confusing and contradictory interpretations of wetland rules likely will continue. In that vein, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report concluded that Corps districts differ in how they interpret and apply federal rules when determining which waters and wetlands are subject to federal jurisdiction, documenting enough differences that the Corps has begun a comprehensive survey of its district office practices to help promote greater consistency.12 Concerns over inconsistent or confusing regulation of wetlands have also drawn congressional interest.13 Rapanos-Carabell. Federal courts continue to have a key role in interpreting and clarifying the SWANCC decision. In February 2006, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases brought by landowners (Rapanos v. United States; Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) seeking to narrow the scope of the CWA permit program as it applies to development of wetlands. The issue in both cases had to do with the reach of the CWA to cover “waters” that were not navigable waters, in the traditional sense, but were connected somehow to navigable waters or “adjacent” to those waters. (The act requires a federal permit to discharge dredged or fill materials into “navigable waters.”) Many legal and other observers hoped that the Court’s ruling in these cases would bring greater clarity about the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction. The Court’s ruling was issued on June 19, 2006 (Rapanos et al., v. United States, 126 S.Ct. 2208 (2006)). In a 5-4 decision, a plurality of the Court, led by 12 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Corps of Engineers Needs to Evaluate Its District Office Practices in Determining Jurisdiction, GAO-04-297, February 2004, 45 pp. 13 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Inconsistent Regulation of Wetlands and Other Waters, Hearing 108-58, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., March 30, 2004. CRS-11 Justice Scalia, held that the lower court had applied an incorrect standard to determine whether the wetlands at issue are covered by the CWA. Justice Kennedy joined this plurality to vacate the lower court decisions and remand the cases for further consideration, but he took different positions on most of the substantive issues raised by the cases, as did four other dissenting justices.14 Legal observers suggested that the implications of the ruling (both short-term and long-term) are far from clear. Because the several opinions written by the justices did not draw a clear line regarding what wetlands and other waters are subject to federal jurisdiction, one likely result is more case-by-case determinations and continuing litigation. There also could be renewed pressure on the Corps and EPA to clarify the issues through an administrative rulemaking. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on issues raised by the Court’s ruling on August 1, 2006. Members and a number of witnesses urged EPA and the Corps to issue new guidance to clarify the scope of the ruling. On June 5, 2007 — nearly one year after the Rapanos ruling — EPA and the Corps did issue guidance to enable their field staffs to make CWA jurisdictional determinations in light of the decision.15 According to the guidance, the agencies will assert regulatory jurisdiction over certain waters, such as traditional navigable waters and adjacent wetlands. Jurisdiction over others, such as non-navigable tributaries that do not typically flow year-round and wetlands adjacent to such tributaries, will be determined on a case-by-case basis, to determine if the waters in question have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water. The guidance details how the agencies should evaluate whether there is a significant nexus. The guidance is not intended to increase or decrease CWA jurisdiction, and it does not supersede or nullify the January 2003 guidance, discussed above, which addressed jurisdiction over isolated wetlands in light of SWANCC. In accompanying documents, the agencies said that the Administration was considering a rulemaking in response to the Rapanos decision, but they noted that developing new rules would take more time than issuing the guidance. They also noted that, while the guidance provides more clarity for how jurisdictional determinations will be made concerning non-navigable tributaries and their adjacent wetlands, legal challenges to the scope of CWA jurisdiction are likely to continue. The guidance was effective immediately, but the agencies also solicited public comments for a six-month period. Further changes could follow, after reviewing the public comments, the agencies said, but no changes have been made so far. While the issue of how regulatory protection of wetlands is affected by the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions continues to evolve, the remaining responsibility to protect affected wetlands falls on states and localities. Whether states will act to fill in the gap left by removal of some federal jurisdiction is likely to be constrained by budgetary and political pressures, but a few states (Wisconsin and Ohio, for 14 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33263, The Wetlands Coverage of the Clean Water Act Is Revisited by the Supreme Court: Rapanos and Carabell, by Robert Meltz and Claudia Copeland. 15 The guidance and related documents are available at [http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/ guidance/CWAwaters.html]. CRS-12 example) have passed new laws or amended regulations to do so. In comments on the 2003 ANPRM, many states said that they do not have authority or financial resources to protect their wetlands, in the absence of federal involvement. Legislation to reverse the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions was introduced in the 110th Congress (H.R. 2421 and S. 1870, the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act of 2007); similar legislation was introduced in the 108th and 109th Congresses. It would provide a broad statutory definition of “waters of the United States”; is intended to clarify that the CWA is meant to protect U.S. waters from pollution, not just maintain their navigability; and includes a set of findings to assert constitutional authority over waters and wetlands.16 The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held hearings on H.R. 2421 and related jurisdictional issues on July 17 and July 19, 2007. Another hearing was held April 16, 2008. The full Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on issues related to the Rapanos ruling on December 13, 2007, and held a legislative hearing on S. 1870 on April 9, 2008. Proponents of the legislation argue that Congress must clarify the important issues left unsettled by the Supreme Court’s 2001 and 2006 rulings and by the recent Corps/EPA guidance. Bill sponsors argue that the legislation would “reaffirm” what Congress intended when the CWA was enacted in 1972 and what EPA and the Corps have subsequently been practicing until recently, in terms of CWA jurisdiction. But critics assert that the legislation would expand federal authority, and thus would have unintended but foreseeable consequences that are likely to increase confusion, rather than settle it. Critics question the constitutionality of the bill, arguing that, by including all non-navigable waters in the jurisdiction of the CWA, it exceeds the limits of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. Supporters contend that the legislation is properly grounded in Congress’s commerce power. In light of the widely differing views of proponents and opponents, future prospects for this legislation are uncertain. The Bush Administration did not take a position on any legislation to clarify the scope of “waters of the United States” protected under the CWA.17 One difficulty of legislating changes to the CWA in order to protect wetlands results from the fact that the complex scientific questions about such areas (see discussion above, “Wetlands: Information and Science”) are not easily amenable to precise resolution in law. The debate over revising the act highlights the challenges of using the law to do so. Should All Wetlands Be Treated Equally? Under the Section 404 program, there is a perception that all jurisdictional wetlands are treated equally, 16 Other legislation to restrict regulatory jurisdiction was introduced in the 109th Congress (H.R. 2658). It sought to narrow the statutory definition of “navigable waters” and define certain isolated wetlands and other areas as not being subject to federal regulatory jurisdiction. It also would give the Corps sole authority to determine Section 404 jurisdiction, for permitting purposes. 17 For additional information, see CRS general distribution memorandum, “Analysis of the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2007, H.R. 2421 and S. 1870,” by Claudia Copeland and Robert Meltz, October 3, 2007. CRS-13 regardless of size, functions, or values. In reality, this is not the case, because the Corps’ general permits do provide accelerated regulatory decisions for many activities that affect wetlands. However, this perception has led critics to focus on situations where a wetland has little apparent value, but the landowner’s proposal is not approved or the landowner is penalized for altering a wetland without a federal permit. Critics believe that one possible solution may be to have a tiered approach for regulating wetlands. Legislation introduced in past Congresses proposed to establish multiple tiers (typically three) — from highly valuable wetlands that should receive the greatest protection to the least valuable wetlands where alterations might usually be allowed. Some states (New York, for example) use such an approach for state-regulated wetlands. The Corps and EPA issued guidance to field staff emphasizing the flexibility that currently exists in the Section 404 program to apply less vigorous permit review to small projects with minor environmental impacts. Three questions arise: (1) What are the implications of implementing a classification program? (2) How clearly can a line separating each wetland category be defined? (3) Are there regions where wetlands should be treated differently? Regarding classification, even most wetland protection advocates acknowledge that there are some situations where a wetland designation with total protection is not appropriate. But they fear that classification for different degrees of protection could be a first step toward a major erosion in overall wetland protection. Also, these advocates would probably like to see almost all wetlands presumed to be in the highest protection category unless experts can prove an area should receive a lesser level of protection, while critics who view protection efforts as excessive, would seek the reverse. Locating the boundary line of a wetland can be controversial when the line encompasses areas that do not meet the image held by many. Controversy would likely grow if a tiered approach required that lines segment wetland areas. On the other hand, a consistent application of an agreed-on definition may lead to fewer disputes and result in more timely decisions. Some states have far more wetlands than others. Different treatment has been proposed for Alaska because about one-third of the state is designated as wetlands, yet a very small portion has been converted. Legislative proposals have been made to exempt that state from the Section 404 program until 1% of its wetlands have been lost. Some types of wetlands are already treated differently. For example, playas and prairie potholes have somewhat different definitions under swampbuster (discussed below), and the effect is to increase the number of acres that are considered as wetlands. This differential treatment contributes to questions about federal regulatory consistency on private property. Agriculture and Wetlands National surveys more than two decades ago indicated that agricultural activities had been responsible for about 80% of wetland loss in the preceding decades, making this topic a focus for policymakers seeking to protect the remaining wetlands. Congress responded by creating programs in farm legislation starting in 1985. CRS-14 Conservation programs in the farm bill use both disincentives and incentives to encourage landowners to protect and restore wetlands. Swampbuster and the Wetlands Reserve Program are the two largest efforts, but others such as the Conservation Reserve Program’s wetland and buffer acres pilot program and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, are also being used to protect wetlands. The 110th Congress enacted legislation to reauthorize farm programs through 2012 (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246). The 2008 farm bill authorized new programs that could further assist wetlands conservation. The most recent wetland loss survey conducted by the NRCS (comparing data from 1997 and 2002) indicates that there was a small annual increase for the first time since these data have been collected, of 26,000 acres.18 However, the agency warns that statistical uncertainties preclude concluding with certainty that gain is actually occurring. Wetlands were a major topic of discussion in debate on the 2008 farm bill. Members of the farm community have expressed a wide range of views about wetland protection, from strong opposition to strong support. These views are frequently framed in the context of two general concerns about wetland protection efforts. First, as a philosophical matter, some object to federal regulation of private lands, regardless of the societal values those lands might provide. Second, many farmers want certainty and predictability about the land they farm to limit their financial risk. Therefore, if wetlands are located on a property that they farm, they want assurances that the boundary line delineating wetlands will remain where located for as long as possible. Swampbuster. Swampbuster, enacted in 1985, uses disincentives rather than regulations to protect wetlands on agricultural lands. It removes a farmer’s eligibility from all government price and income support programs for activities such as draining, dredging, filling, leveling or otherwise altering a wetland. Swampbuster has been controversial with farmers concerned about redefining an appropriate federal role in wetland protection on agricultural lands, and with wetland protection advocates concerned about inadequate enforcement. Since 1995, the NRCS has made wetland determinations only in response to requests because of uncertainty over whether changes in regulation or law would modify boundaries that have already been delineated. NRCS has estimated that more than 2.6 million wetland determinations have been made and that more than 4 million may eventually be required. Swampbuster amendments in 1996 (P.L. 104-127) granted producers greater flexibility by making changes, such as: exempting swampbuster penalties when wetlands are voluntarily restored; providing that prior converted wetlands are not to be considered “abandoned” if they remain in agricultural use; and granting good-faith exemptions. They also encourage mitigation, established a mitigation banking pilot program, and repealed required consultation with the FWS. Amendments enacted in the 2008 farm bill will require an additional layer of review within USDA for compliance with swampbuster. 18 See [http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/2003/nri03wetlands.html]. CRS-15 Other Agricultural Wetlands Programs. Under the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), enacted in 1990, landowners receive payments for placing easements on farmed wetlands. It provides long-term technical and financial assistance to landowners with the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property, and to establish wildlife practices and protection. The 2002 farm bill reauthorized the program through FY2007 and raised the enrollment cap to 2,275,000 acres, with 250,000 acres to be enrolled annually. NRCS has also taken administrative actions implementing this program, such as announcing a new enhancement program on the lower Missouri River in Nebraska to enroll almost 19,000 acres at a cost of $26 million, working with several public and private partners, in June 2004. Through FY2005, 9,226 projects had enrolled 1.744 million acres, and easements have been perfected on 1.37 million of those acres. A majority of the easements are in three states: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas. Most of the land is enrolled under permanent easements, while only about 10% is enrolled under 10year restoration agreements, according to data supplied by NRCS in support of its FY2007 budget request. Prior to the 2002 farm bill, farmer interest had exceeded available funding, which may help to explain why Congress raised the enrollment ceiling in that legislation. The 2008 farm bill increased the WRP maximum enrollment cap from 2.275 million acres to 3.014 million acres and expanded eligible lands to include certain types of private and tribal wetlands, croplands, and grasslands, as well as lands that meet the habitat needs of wildlife species. The bill made certain program changes, including specifying criteria for ranking program applications, and requiring USDA to submit a report to Congress on long-term conservation easements under the program. The legislation authorized a new Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program, which will allow USDA to enter into agreements with states in order to leverage federal funds for wetlands protection and enhancement. The 2002 farm bill expanded the 500,000-acre wetland and buffer acreage pilot program within the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to a 1-million-acre program available nationwide. CRP allows producers to enter into 10- to 15-year contracts to install certain conservation practices. The 2008 farm bill amended the pilot program to increase the amount of acreage that states can enroll (up to 100,000 acres, or a national maximum of one million acres). Participants must agree to restore wetland hydrology, establish appropriate vegetation, and refrain from commercial use of the land. The wetland and buffer program may become more important to overall protection efforts in the wake of the SWANCC decision, discussed above, which limited the reach of the Section 404 permit program to many small wetlands that are isolated from navigable waterways. Through September 2006, more than 166,000 acres had been enrolled in this program through more than 10,000 contracts, with about 70,000 of those acres in Iowa. In August 2004, the Administration announced a new Wetland Restoration Initiative to allow enrollment of up to 250,000 acres of large wetland complexes and playa lakes located outside the 100-year floodplain in the CRP after October 1, 2004. The Administration estimated that implementation of this initiative will cost $200 million. Participants receive incentive payments to help pay for restoring the CRS-16 hydrology of the site, as well as rental payments and cost sharing assistance to install eligible conservation practices. The 2008 farm bill included amendments for several agriculture conservation programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Farmland Protection Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, in ways that may have incidental protection benefits for wetlands, because of higher funding levels or because of program changes. For example, EQIP supports the installation or implementation of structural and management practices, and the 2008 farm bill expanded the program to include practices that enhance wetlands. Finally, some programs could less directly help protect wetlands, including the Conservation Security Program (renamed the Conservation Stewardship Program), which provides payments to install and maintain practices on agricultural lands; the new Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (replacing the previous Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program; it is funded through EQIP), which is designed to address water quality and quantity concerns on agricultural land; and several other programs to better manage water resources.19 Agricultural Wetlands and the Section 404 Program. T h e C W A Section 404 program applies to qualified wetlands in all locations, including agricultural lands. But the Corps and EPA exempt “prior converted lands” (wetlands modified for agricultural purposes before 1985) from Section 404 permit requirements under a memorandum of agreement (MOA), and since 1977 the Clean Water Act has exempted “normal farming activities.” The Supreme Court’s SWANCC decision apparently exempts certain isolated wetlands from Corps jurisdiction; NRCS estimated that about 8 million acres in agricultural locations might be exempted by this decision. While these exemptions and the MOA displease some protection advocates, they have probably dampened some of the criticism from farming interests over federal regulation of private lands. On the other hand, the prospect that Congress might enact legislation to reverse the Court’s 2001 and 2006 rulings, discussed above, has particularly alarmed farm groups, who fear that changes in law or regulations could negatively affect their activities. The Corps and NRCS have been unsuccessful in revising the MOA since 1996 despite a decade of negotiation, although they signed a very general partnership agreement on July 7, 2005. Some of the wetlands that fall outside Section 404 requirements as a result of judicial decisions can now be protected if landowners decide to enroll them into the revised farmable wetlands program or under other new initiatives. Private Property Rights and Landowner Compensation An estimated 74% of all remaining wetlands in the coterminous states are on private lands. Questions of federal regulation of private property stem from the argument that land owners should be compensated when a “taking” occurs and alternative uses are prohibited or restrictions on use are imposed to protect wetland 19 For more information on these provisions, see CRS Report RL34557, Conservation Provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill, by Tadlock Cowan and Renee Johnson. CRS-17 values. The U.S. Constitution provides that property owners shall be compensated if private property is “taken” by government action. The courts generally have found that compensation is not required unless all reasonable uses are precluded. Many individuals or companies purchase land with the expectation that they can alter it. If that ability is denied, they contend, then the land is greatly reduced in value. Many argue that a taking should be recognized when a site is designated as a wetland. In 2002, the Supreme Court held that a Rhode Island man, who had acquired property after the state enacted wetlands regulation affecting the parcel, is not automatically prevented from bringing an action to recover compensation from the state. Instead, the court ruled that the property retained some economic use after the state’s action. (Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 2002). Congress, while under Republican control, explored these wetlands property rights issues on several occasions. An example is an October 2001 hearing by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment.20 Recent Congresses considered, but did not enact, property rights protection proposals. Democratic leadership appears less interested in bringing attention to this topic. The Bush Administration did not state an official position on these types of proposals.21 Wetland Restoration and Mitigation Federal wetland policies during the past decade have increasingly emphasized restoration of wetland areas. Much of this restoration occurs as part of efforts to mitigate the loss of wetlands at other sites. The mitigation concept has broad appeal, but implementation has left a conflicting record. Examination of this record, presented in a June 2001 report from the National Research Council, found it to be wanting. The NRC report said that mitigation projects called for in permits affecting wetlands were not meeting the federal government’s “no net loss” policy goal for wetlands function.22 Likewise, a 2001 GAO report criticized the ability of the Corps to track the impact of projects under its current mitigation program that allows inlieu-fee mitigation projects in exchange for issuing permits allowing wetlands development.23 Both scientists and policymakers debate whether it is possible to restore or create wetlands with ecological and other functions equivalent to or better than those of natural wetlands that have been lost over time. Results so far seem to vary, depending on the type of wetland and the level of commitment to monitoring and maintenance. Congress has repeatedly endorsed mitigation in recent years. 20 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, The Wetland Permitting Process: Is It Working Fairly? Hearing 107-50, 107th Cong., 1st sess., October 3, 2001. 21 For more information, see CRS Report RL30423, Wetlands Regulation and the Law of Property Rights “Takings”, by Robert Meltz. 22 National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act (Washington, DC: 2001), 267 pp. 23 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Wetlands Protection: Assessments Needed to Determine the Effectiveness of In-Lieu-Fee Mitigation, GAO-01-325, 75 pp. CRS-18 The Louisiana Experience. Much of the attention to wetland restoration has focused on Louisiana, where an estimated 80% of the total loss of U.S. coastal wetlands has occurred (coastal wetlands are about 5% of all U.S. wetlands). The current rate of loss is more than 15,000 acres per year, a decline from higher rates in earlier years.24 In response to these losses, Congress authorized a task force, led by the Corps, to prepare a list of coastal wetland restoration projects in the state, and also provided funding to plan and carry out restoration projects in this and other coastal states under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act of 1990, also known as the Breaux Act.25 The projects range from reintroduction of freshwater and diversion of sediment to construction of shoreline barriers and planting of vegetation. In total, the estimated total cost to complete all 147 approved projects is $1.78 billion. In a 2007 report, GAO reported that it is impossible to determine the collective success of restoring coastal wetlands in Louisiana, because of an inadequate approach to monitoring. GAO had reviewed the Breaux Act program to identify the types of projects that have been designed and lessons that have been learned from 74 projects that have been completed so far.26 Others, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, disagreed with GAO’s findings, observing that longterm data being provided through ongoing project monitoring are intended to yield insight into qualitative and quantitative project performance. In the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the summer of 2005, multiple legislative proposals were introduced to fund additional restoration projects already planned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and to explore other opportunities that would restore and stabilize wetlands in southern Louisiana. Without remedial action, the net effect of these storms will likely be major permanent losses, especially along the coast. These losses are partially offset as some destruction was temporary and in a few situations, new wetlands were created. The extent of change and loss continues to be documented by federal agencies and others. More specifically, before the hurricanes, Congress was considering legislation that would have provided about $2 billion to the restoration effort. Since the 2005 hurricanes, more expansive options costing up to $14 billion that were proposed in the 1998 report Coast 2050 are also being considered.27 S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, was passed during the final days of the 109th Congress.28 This legislation provides 24 Loss rates have been calculated by U.S. Geological Survey’s Nation Wetlands Research Center, which has published a number of reports describing past and predicted loss rates. 25 For information on this program, see CRS Report RS22467, Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA): Effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on Implementation, by Jeffrey Zinn. 26 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Coastal Wetlands: Lessons Learned from Past Efforts in Louisiana Could Help Future Restoration and Protection, GAO-08-130, 57 p. 27 For a more detailed discussion of the effects of the hurricanes on planning for wetland restoration, see CRS Report RS22276, Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Restoration After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, by Jeffrey Zinn. 28 S. 3711 was attached to a broad tax relief measure that was enacted in December 2006 (continued...) CRS-19 additional revenues to states adjacent to offshore oil and gas production activities. One of the purposes for which these revenues can be spent is wetland restoration, and the availability of these funds may affect the amount and scale of wetland restoration activity in the central Gulf Coast. Other Federal Protection Efforts. Many federal agencies have been active in wetland improvement efforts in recent years. In particular, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has been promoting the success of its Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, which Congress reauthorized through FY2011 in 2006 (P.L. 109-294). Through voluntary agreements, the Partners program provides technical assistance and cost share incentives directly to landowners for wetland restoration projects on private lands.29 Other programs also restore and protect domestic and international wetlands. One of these derives from the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, reauthorized through FY2012 in P.L. 109-322 with an appropriations ceiling of $75 million annually. This act provides grants for wetland conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. According to the FWS FY2007 budget notes, the United States and its partners have protected more than 18.5 million acres and restored, created, or enhanced an additional 5.9 million acres through almost 1,500 projects. The FWS has combined funding for this program with several other laws into what it calls the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund. Under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, more commonly known as the Ramsar Convention, the United States is one of 158 nations that have agreed to slow the rate of wetlands loss by designating important sites. These nations have designated 1,822 sites, totaling 415 million acres, since the convention was adopted in 1971. The United States has designated 24 wetland sites, encompassing 5.6 million acres. Mitigation. Mitigation also has become an important cornerstone of the Section 404 program in recent years. A 1990 MOA signed by the agencies with regulatory responsibilities (EPA and the Corps) outlines a sequence of three steps leading to mitigation: first, activities in wetlands should be avoided when possible; second, when they can not be avoided, impacts should be minimized; and third, where minimum impacts are still unacceptable, mitigation is appropriate. It directs that mitigated wetland acreage be replaced on a one-for-one functional basis. Therefore, mitigation may be required as a condition of a Section 404 permit. Some wetland protection advocates are critical of mitigation, which they view as justifying destruction of wetlands. They believe that the Section 404 permit program should be an inducement to avoid damaging wetland areas. These critics also contend that adverse impacts on wetland values are often not fully mitigated and 28 (...continued) (H.R. 6111, P.L. 109-432). For additional information, see CRS Report RL33493, Outer Continental Shelf: Debate over Oil and Gas Leasing and Revenue Sharing, by Marc Humphries. 29 See [http://ecos.fws.gov/partners/viewContent.do?viewPage=partners]. CRS-20 that mitigation measures, even if well-designed, are not adequately monitored or maintained. Supporters of current efforts counter that they generally work as envisioned, but little data exist to support this view. Questions about implementation of the 1990 MOA and controversies over the feasibility of compensating for wetland losses further complicate the wetland protection debate. In response to criticism in the NRC and GAO reports (discussed above), in November 2001, the Corps issued new guidance to strengthen the standards on compensating for wetlands lost to development. The guidance was criticized by environmental groups and some Members of Congress for weakening rather than strengthening mitigation requirements and for the Corps’ failure to consult with other federal agencies. In December 2002, the Corps and EPA released an action plan including 17 items that both agencies believe will improve the effectiveness of wetlands restoration efforts.30 In March 2008, the Corps and EPA promulgated a mitigation rule to replace the 1990 MOA with clearer requirements on what will be considered a successful project to compensate for wetlands lost to activities like construction, mining, and agriculture.31 The rule sets performance standards and criteria for three types of wetlands mitigation: mitigation banks, in-lieu programs, and permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation. It sets standards to mitigate the loss of wetlands and associated aquatic resources and is intended to improve the planning, implementation, and management of compensatory mitigation projects designed to restore aquatic resources that are affected by activities that disturb a half-acre or more of wetlands. It also is designed to help ensure no net loss of wetlands by addressing key recommendations raised in the 2001 NRC report. Under the rule, all compensation projects must have mitigation plans that include 12 fundamental components, such as objectives, site selection criteria, a mitigation work plan, and a maintenance plan.32 The concept of “mitigation banks,” in which wetlands are created, restored, or enhanced in advance to serve as “credits” that may be used or acquired by permit applicants when they are required to mitigate impacts of their activities, is widely endorsed. Numerous public and private banks have been established, but many believe that it is too early to assess their success. In a study of mitigation, the Environmental Law Institute determined that as of 2005, there were 330 active banks, 75 sold out banks, and 169 banks seeking approval to operate.33 Provisions in 30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan, December 24, 2002.” See [http://www.epa.gov/owow/ wetlands/pdf/map1226withsign.pdf]. 31 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency, “Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, Final Rule,” 73 Federal Register 19594, April 10, 2008. 32 Information on compensatory mitigation can be found at [http://www.epa.gov/ wetlandsmitigation/]. 33 For more information on mitigation generally, and mitigation banks specifically, see (continued...) CRS-21 several laws, such as the 1996 farm bill and the 1998 Transportation Equity Act (TEA-21), endorse the mitigation banking concept. In November 2003, Congress enacted wetlands mitigation provisions as part of the FY2004 Department of Defense (DOD) authorization act (P.L. 108-136). Section 314 of that act directed DOD to make payments to wetland mitigation banking programs in instances where military construction projects would result or could result in destruction of or impacts to wetlands. 33 (...continued) Environmental Law Institute, 2005 Status Report on Compensatory Mitigation in the United States, April 2006, 105 pp. CRS-22 For Additional Reading Connolly, Kim Diana, Stephen M. Johnson, Douglas R. Williams. Wetlands Law and Policy, Understanding Section 404. American Bar Association, Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources. 2005. 528 pp. Kusler, Jon and Teresa Opheim. Our National Wetland Heritage: A Protection Guide. Environmental Law Institute. [Washington] 1996. 149 pp. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. [Washington] 2001. 267 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Wetlands and Agriculture: Private Interests and Public Benefits, by Ralph Heimlich et al. [Washington] 2001, 123 pp. Agricultural Economic Report No. 765. U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coterminous United States 1998-2004. [Washington] 2006. 54 pp. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Wetlands Protection: Assessments Needed to Determine the Effectiveness of In-Lieu-Fee Mitigation. (GAO-01-325) [Washington] May 2001. 75 pp. ——. Waters and Wetlands: Corps of Engineers Needs to Evaluate District Office Practices in Determining Jurisdiction. (GAO-04-297) [Washington] February 2004. 45 pp. programs add to the complexity of the protection effort. Congressional Research Service Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................1 Wetlands: Science and Information .............................................................................................2 What Is a Wetland? ...............................................................................................................2 What Functional Values Are Provided by Wetlands?..............................................................3 How Fast Are Wetlands Disappearing, and How Many Acres Are Left?.................................4 Selected Federal Wetlands Programs ...........................................................................................5 The Clean Water Act Section 404 Program............................................................................5 The Permitting Process ...................................................................................................6 Nationwide Permits.........................................................................................................7 Section 404 Judicial Proceedings: SWANCC and Rapanos...............................................8 Congressional Response................................................................................................ 11 Should All Wetlands Be Treated Equally?...................................................................... 13 Agriculture and Wetlands .................................................................................................... 13 Swampbuster ................................................................................................................ 14 Other Agricultural Wetlands Programs .......................................................................... 14 Agricultural Wetlands and the Section 404 Program ...................................................... 16 Private Property Rights and Landowner Compensation ....................................................... 16 Wetland Restoration and Mitigation .................................................................................... 17 The Louisiana Experience ............................................................................................. 17 Other Federal Protection Efforts.................................................................................... 19 Mitigation ..................................................................................................................... 20 For Additional Reading ............................................................................................................. 21 Contacts Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 22 Congressional Research Service Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Introduction Wetlands, with a variety of physical characteristics, are found throughout the country. They are known in different regions as swamps, marshes, fens, potholes, playa lakes, or bogs. Although these places can differ greatly, they all have distinctive plant and animal assemblages because of the wetness of the soil. Some wetland areas may be continuously inundated by water, while other areas may not be flooded at all. In coastal areas, flooding may occur daily as tides rise and fall. Prior to the mid-1980s, federal laws and policies to protect wetlands were generally limited to providing habitat for migratory waterfowl, especially ducks and geese. Some laws encouraged destruction of wetland areas, including selected provisions in the federal tax code, public works legislation, and farm programs. Since the mid-1980s, the values of wetlands have been recognized in different ways in numerous national policies, and federal laws either encourage wetland protection, or prohibit or do not support their destruction. These laws, however, do not add up to a fully consistent or comprehensive national approach. The central federal regulatory program, found in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, requires permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into many but not all wetland areas. However, other activities that may adversely affect wetlands do not require permits, and some places that scientists define as wetlands are exempt from this permit program because of physical characteristics or the type of activity that takes place. One agricultural program, Swampbuster, is a disincentive program that indirectly protects wetlands by making farmers who drain wetlands ineligible for federal farm program benefits; those who do not receive these benefits (56% of all farmers received no federal farm payments of any kind in 2006) have no reason to observe the requirements of this program. Numerous other acquisition, protection, and restoration programs complete the current federal effort. Although numerous wetland protection bills have been introduced in recent Congresses, the most significant new wetlands legislation to be enacted has been in farm bills, in 1996, 2002, and 2008. During this period, Congress also reauthorized several wetlands programs, mostly setting higher appropriations ceilings, without making significant shifts in policy. The Bush Administration endorsed wetland protection in legislation, such as the farm bill and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act reauthorization, and at events, such as Earth Day presentations. The Bush Administration also issued guidance on mitigation policies and regulatory program jurisdiction; the latter has been controversial (see discussion below). Congress has provided a forum in numerous hearings where conflicting interests in wetland issues have been debated. These debates encompass disparate scientific and programmatic questions, and conflicting views of the role of government where private property is involved. Broadly speaking, the conflicts are between: • Environmental interests and wetland protection advocates who have been pressing for greater wetlands protection as multiple values have been more widely recognized, by improving coordination and consistency among agencies and levels of governments, and strengthened programs; and • Others, including landowners, farmers, and small businessmen, who counter that protection efforts have gone too far, by aggressively protecting privately owned wet areas that provide few wetland values. They have been especially critical of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Congressional Research Service 1 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Protection Agency (EPA), asserting that they administer the Section 404 program in an overzealous and inflexible manner. Wetland legislative activity in the 110th Congress centered broadly on two issues. One was on wetlands conservation provisions in the 2008 farm bill, which was enacted in June 2008 (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246). The new law reauthorized and increased the acreage enrollment cap in the wetlands reserve program, with a goal of enrolling 250,000 acres annually, and extended provisions to enroll up to a million acres of wetlands and buffers in the Conservation Reserve Program. Other agricultural conservation programs, while lacking explicit wetlands protection provisions, are still likely to be beneficial to wetlands. The second major area of legislative interest in the 110th Congress and continuing in the 111th Congress is proposals to reverse Supreme Court rulings that addressed and narrowed the scope of geographic jurisdiction of wetlands regulations under the Clean Water Act. This interest arises because federal courts have played a key role in interpreting and clarifying the limits of federal jurisdiction to regulate activities that affect wetlands, especially since a 2001 Supreme Court ruling in the so-called SWANCC decision and a 2006 ruling in Rapanos v. United States. In the 110th Congress, House and Senate committees held hearings on legislation intended to reverse the SWANCC and Rapanos rulings (H.R. 2421, S. 1870). Similar legislation introduced in the 111th Congress (S. 787, the Clean Water Restoration Act) has been approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and ordered reported. Companion legislation was introduced in the House in April (H.R. 5088, America’s Commitment to Clean Water Act). Wetlands: Science and Information Scientific questions about wetlands, with answers that can be important to policy makers, include how to define wetlands; how to catalogue the rate and pattern of wetland declines and losses as well as restorations and increases; and how to assess the importance of wetland changes to broader ecosystems. Wetlands science has made considerable strides in developing a fuller and more sophisticated knowledge about many aspects of wetlands in the more than two decades since protecting wetlands became a general policy goal in federal law and program administration.1 Two topics where scientific information and wetland protection policies remain inconsistent continue to be: should all regulated wetlands be treated equally; and if all scientifically-defined wetlands are not covered by the federal regulatory program, what subset should be covered, and how should such decisions be made? While discussion of either question has major science elements, both are primarily addressed in the section below about the Clean Water Act Section 404 program. What Is a Wetland? Scientists generally agree that the presence of a wetland can be determined by a combination of soils, plants, and hydrology. The only definition of wetlands in law, in the swampbuster 1 Two places to view material on some of the changes in scientific knowledge and understanding are through the products of the Society of State Wetlands Managers http://www.aswm.org and the Society of Wetland Scientists http://www.sws.org. Congressional Research Service 2 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues provisions of farm legislation (P.L. 99-198) and in the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-645), lists those three components. This definition does not include more specific criteria, such as exactly what conditions must be present and for how long, thus leaving interpretation to scientists and regulators on a case-by-case basis. Controversies are exacerbated when many sites that have those three components and are identified as wetlands by experts, either may have wetland characteristics only some portion of the time, or may not look like what many people visualize as wetlands. Also, many of these sites have been directly or indirectly modified by human activities that diminish their appearance (and their ability to perform wetland functions). Wetlands currently subject to federal regulation are a large subset of all places that members of the scientific community would call a wetland. These regulated wetlands, under the Section 404 program discussed below, are currently identified using technical criteria in a wetland delineation manual issued by the Corps in 1987. This manual was prepared jointly and is used by all federal agencies to carry out their responsibilities under this program (the Corps, EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)). It provides guidance and field-level consistency for the agencies that have roles in wetland regulatory protection. (A second and slightly different manual, agreed to by the Corps and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), is used for delineating wetlands on agricultural lands.) While the agencies try to improve the objectivity and consistency of wetland identification and delineation, judgment continues to play a role and can lead to site-specific controversies. Cases discussed below (see “Section 404 Judicial Proceedings: SWANCC and Rapanos”) center on whether wetlands should be included or exempted from the regulatory program in certain circumstances, such as the physical setting. What Functional Values Are Provided by Wetlands? Functional values, both ecological and economic, at each wetland depend on its location, size, and relationship to adjacent land and water areas. Many of these values have been recognized only recently. Historically, many federal programs encouraged wetlands to be drained or altered because they were seen as having little value as wetlands (for example, flood protection programs of the Corps and Department of Agriculture have modified or eliminated many flood plain wetlands through alterations of the hydraulic/hydrologic regime). Wetland values can include: • habitat for aquatic birds and other animals and plants, including numerous threatened and endangered species; production of fish and shellfish; • water storage, including mitigating the effects of floods and droughts; • water purification; • recreation; • timber production; • food production; • education and research; and • open space and aesthetic values. Usually wetlands provide some combination of these values; single wetlands rarely provide all of these values. The composite value typically declines when wetlands are altered. In addition, the Congressional Research Service 3 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues effects of alteration often extend well beyond the immediate area, because wetlands are usually part of a larger water system. For example, conversion of wetlands to urban uses has increased flood damages; this value has received considerable attention as the costs of natural disaster costs mounted since the 1990s. How Fast Are Wetlands Disappearing, and How Many Acres Are Left? A number of reports document changes in wetland acres. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service periodically surveys national net trends in wetland acreage using the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). It has estimated that when European settlers first arrived, wetland acreage in the area that would become the 48 states was more than 220 million acres, or about 5% of the total land area. According to its most recent report of national trends, issued in 2006, total wetland acreage in 2004 was estimated to be 107.7 million acres.2 FWS also has published reports on wetland status and trends in several individual regions and states, such as Florida, Texas, and Alaska.3 National data compiled by the NRCS and the FWS in separate surveys and using different methodologies have identified similar trends. Both show that the annual net loss rate dropped from almost 500,000 acres annually nearly three decades ago to slight net annual gains in recent years. The FWS survey estimated that the average annual gain between 1998 and 2004 was 32,000 acres, while NRCS (using its Natural Resources Inventory of privately-owned lands) estimated that there was an average annual gain of 26,000 acres between 1997 and 2002.4 NRCS cautioned against making precise claims of net increases because of statistical uncertainties. Some environmentalists caution that the increases identified in the latest FWS data are tied to a proliferation of small, shallow ponds rather than natural wetlands. In 2002, the Bush Administration endorsed the concept of “no-net-loss” of wetlands—a goal declared by President George H. W. Bush in 1988 and also embraced by President Clinton to balance wetlands losses and gains in the short term and achieve net gains in the long term. On Earth Day 2004, President Bush announced a new national goal, moving beyond no-net-loss, of achieving an overall increase of wetlands. 5 The goal was to create, improve, and protect at least three million wetland acres over the next five years in order to increase overall wetland acres and quality. (By comparison, the Clinton Administration in 1998 announced policies intended to achieve overall wetland increases of 200,000 acres per year by 2005.) The Bush strategy also called for better tracking of wetland programs and enhanced local and private sector collaboration. In April 2008, the Bush Administration issued a report saying that more than 3.6 million acres of wetlands had been restored, protected, or improved as part of the President’s program to create, improve and protect wetlands, and that the number was expected to climb to 4.5 million acres by 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coterminus United States, 1998 - 2004, March 2006, 110 pp. This is the most recent of several reports by the Inventory over the past 25 years, which document wetlands trends at both a national and regional scale. 3 For information, see http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/StatusAndTrends/index.html. 4 Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Resources Inventory; 2002 Annual NRI (Wetlands). See http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/2003/nri03wetlands.html. 5 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040422-1.html. Congressional Research Service 4 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues the original date set by that program—Earth Day 2009.6 The report documents gains, but not offsetting loses. It summarizes accomplishments for each federal wetland conservation program. Environmental groups criticized the report as presenting an incomplete picture, because it fails to mention wetlands lost to agriculture and development. Numerous shifts in federal policies since 1985 (and changes in economic conditions as well) strongly influence wetland loss patterns, but the composite effects remain unmeasured beyond these raw numbers. There usually is a large time lag between the announcement and implementation of changes in policy, and collection and release of data that measure how these changes affect loss rates. Also, it is often very difficult to distinguish the role that policy changes play from other factors, such as agricultural markets, development pressures, and land markets. Further, these data only measure acres. This may have been appropriate two or three decades ago when scientists knew less about how to measure the specific functions and values found in wetlands. By providing data limited to number of acres, these data provide few insights into changes in their quality, as measured by the values they provide, which is often determined by factors such as where a wetland is located in a watershed, and what are the surrounding land uses. Nevertheless, in his Earth Day 2004 wetlands announcement (discussed above), President Bush said that as the nation is nearing the goal of no-net-loss, it is appropriate to move towards policies that will result in a net increase of wetland acres and quality. Selected Federal Wetlands Programs Federal program issues include the administration of programs to protect, restore, or mitigate wetland resources (especially the Clean Water Act Section 404 program); relationships between agricultural and regulatory programs; whether all wetlands should be treated the same in federal programs, and which wetlands should be subject to regulation; and whether protecting wetlands by acres is an effective proxy for protecting wetlands based on the functions they perform and the values they provide. In addition, private property questions are raised, because almost threequarters of the remaining wetlands are located on private lands. Some property owners believe that they should be compensated when federal programs limit how they can use their land, and for decisions that arguably diminish the value of the land. The Clean Water Act Section 404 Program The principal federal program that provides regulatory protection for wetlands is found in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Its intent is to protect water and adjacent wetland areas from adverse environmental effects due to discharges of dredged or fill material. Enacted in 1972, Section 404 requires landowners or developers to obtain permits from the Corps of Engineers to carry out activities involving disposal of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The Corps has long had regulatory jurisdiction over dredging and filling, starting with the River and Harbor Act of 1899. The Corps and EPA share responsibility for administering the Section 6 Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality, Conserving America’s Wetlands 2008: Four Years of Progress Implementing the President’s Goal, April 2008. Congressional Research Service 5 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues 404 program. Other federal agencies, including NRCS, FWS, and NMFS, also have roles in this process. In the 1970s, legal decisions in key cases led the Corps to revise this program to incorporate broad jurisdictional definitions in terms of both regulated waters and adjacent wetlands. Section 404 was last amended in 1977. This judicial/regulatory/administrative evolution of the Section 404 program has generally pleased those who view it as a critical tool in wetland protection, but dismayed others who would prefer more limited Corps jurisdiction or who see the expanded regulatory program as intruding on private land-use decisions and treating wetlands of widely varying value similarly. Underlying this debate is the more general question of whether Section 404 is the best approach to federal wetland protection. Some wetland protection advocates have proposed that it be replaced or greatly altered. First, they point out that it governs only the discharge of dredged or fill material, while not regulating other acts that drain, flood, or otherwise reduce functional values. Second, because of exemptions provided in 1977 amendments to Section 404, major categories of activities are not required to obtain permits. These include normal, ongoing farming, ranching, and silvicultural (forestry) activities. Further, permits generally are not required for activities which drain wetlands (only for those that fill wetlands), which excludes a large number of actions with potential to alter wetlands. Third, in the view of protection advocates, the multiple values that wetlands can provide (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, flood control) are not effectively recognized through a statutory approach based principally on water quality, despite the broad objectives of the Clean Water Act. The Permitting Process The Corps’ regulatory process involves both general permits for actions by private landowners that are similar in nature and will likely have a minor effect on wetlands, and individual permits for more significant actions. According to the Corps, it evaluates more than 85,000 permit requests annually. Of those, more than 90% are authorized under a general permit, which can apply regionally or nationwide, and is essentially a permit by rule, meaning the proposed activity is presumed to have a minor impact, individually and cumulatively. Most general permits do not require pre-notification or prior approval by the Corps. About 9% of all permits are required to go through the more detailed evaluation for a standard individual permit, which may involve complex proposals or sensitive environmental issues and can take 180 days or longer for a decision. Less than 0.3% of permits are denied; most other individual permits are modified or conditioned before issuance. About 5% of applications are withdrawn prior to a permit decision. In FY2003 (the most recent year for which data are available), Corps-issued permits authorized activities having a total of 21,330 acres of wetland impact, while those permits required that 43,379 acres of wetlands be restored, created, or enhanced as mitigation for the authorized losses.7 Regulatory procedures on individual permits allow for interagency review and comment, a coordination process that can generate delays and an uncertain outcome, especially for environmentally controversial projects. EPA is the only federal agency having veto power over a proposed Corps permit; EPA has used its veto authority fewer than a dozen times in the 30-plus 7 U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, “Regulatory Statistics, All Permit Decisions, FY2003.” See http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/2003webcharts.pdf. Congressional Research Service 6 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues years since the program began. However, critics have charged that implied threats of delay by the FWS and others practically amount to the same thing. Reforms during the Reagan, earlier Bush, and Clinton Administrations streamlined certain of these procedures, with the intent of speeding up and clarifying the Corps’ full regulatory program, but concerns continue over both process and program goals. Controversy also surrounded revised regulations issued by EPA and the Corps in May 2002, which redefine two key terms in the 404 program: “fill material” and “discharge of fill material.” These definitions are important, because material defined as “fill” is regulated and permitted under Section 404 procedures, while other waste discharges are regulated under more stringent CWA rules and procedures. The agencies said that the revisions were intended to clarify certain confusion in their joint administration of the program due to previous differences in how the two agencies defined those terms. However, environmental groups contended that the changes allow for less restrictive and inadequate regulation of certain disposal activities, including disposal of coal mining waste, which could be harmful to aquatic life in streams. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing in June 2002 to review these issues. Legislation to reverse the agencies’ action by clarifying in the law that fill material cannot be composed of waste has been introduced regularly since the 107th Congress, but no further action has occurred.8 Similar legislation in the 111th Congress is H.R. 1310, the Clean Water Protection Act. Related but not identical legislation also has been introduced in the Senate (S. 696, the Appalachia Restoration Act); this bill is intended to restrict the use of Section 404 to regulate waste disposal from a coal mining practice called mountaintop mining. Nationwide Permits Nationwide permits are a key means by which the Corps minimizes the burden of its regulatory program. A nationwide permit is a form of general permit which authorizes a category of activities throughout the nation and is valid only if the conditions applicable to the permit are met. These general permits authorize activities that are similar in nature and are judged to cause only minimal adverse effect on the environment, individually and cumulatively. General permits minimize the burden of the Corps’ regulatory program by authorizing landowners to proceed without having to obtain individual permits in advance. The current program has few strong supporters, for differing reasons. Developers say that it is too complex and burdened with arbitrary restrictions. Environmentalists say that it does not adequately protect aquatic resources. At issue is whether the program has become so complex and expansive that it cannot either protect aquatic resources or provide for a fair regulatory system, which are its dual objectives. Nationwide permits are issued for periods of no longer than five years and thereafter must be reissued by the Corps. On March 12, 2007, the Corps issued a package of nationwide permits, replacing those that had been in effect since 2002. The 2007 permits established six new nationwide permits (for a total of 49) and also revised a number of existing permits and general terms and conditions that apply to all nationwide permits.9 8 For additional information, see CRS Report RL31411, Controversies over Redefining “Fill Material” Under the Clean Water Act, by Claudia Copeland. 9 U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, “Reissuance of Nationwide Permits; Notice,” 72 Federal Register 11091-11198, March 12, 2007. Congressional Research Service 7 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Citizen groups have filed lawsuits seeking to halt the Corps’ use of one of its nationwide permits, NWP 21, to authorize mountaintop mining activities. These critics contend that the adverse environmental impacts of activities authorized by NWP 21 are far greater than the “minimal adverse effects” limits prescribed by the Clean Water Act for all nationwide permits. In 2004, a federal district court in West Virginia ruled that NWP 21 violates the CWA by authorizing activities that have more than minimal adverse environmental effects. The district court’s ruling was overturned on appeal. Other legal challenges to the use of NWP 21 in connection with mountaintop mining also have been filed. 10 Section 404 authorizes states to assume many of the Corps’ permitting responsibilities. Two states have done this: Michigan (in 1984) and New Jersey (in 1992). Others have cited the complex process of assumption, the anticipated cost of running a program, and the continued involvement of federal agencies because of statutory limits on waters that states could regulate as reasons for not joining these two states. Efforts continue to encourage more states to assume program responsibility. Section 404 Judicial Proceedings: SWANCC and Rapanos The Section 404 program has been the focus of numerous lawsuits, most of which have sought to narrow the geographic scope of the regulatory program. SWANCC An issue of long-standing controversy is whether isolated waters are properly within the jurisdiction of Section 404. Isolated waters (those that lack a permanent surface outlet to downstream waters) which are not physically adjacent to navigable surface waters often appear to provide few of the values for which wetlands are protected, even if they meet the technical definition of a wetland. In January 2001, the Supreme Court ruled on the question of whether the CWA provides the Corps and EPA with authority over isolated waters and wetlands. The Court’s 5-4 ruling in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159) held that the denial of a Section 404 permit for disposal on isolated wetlands solely on the basis that migratory birds use the site exceeds the authority provided in the CWA. The full extent of retraction of the regulatory program resulting from this decision remains unclear, even more than nine years after the ruling. Environmentalists believe that the Court misinterpreted congressional intent on the matter, while industry and landowner groups welcomed the ruling.11 Policy implications of how much the decision restricts federal regulation depend on how broadly or narrowly the opinion is applied, and since the 2001 Court decision, other federal courts have issued a number of rulings that have reached varying conclusions. Some federal courts have interpreted SWANCC narrowly, thus limiting its effect on current permit rules, while a few read the decision more broadly. Attorneys for industry and developers say that the courts will remain 10 For background, see CRS Report RS21421, Mountaintop Mining: Background on Current Controversies, by Claudia Copeland. 11 For additional information, see CRS Report RL30849, The Supreme Court Addresses Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction Over “Isolated Waters”: The SWANCC Decision, by Robert Meltz. Congressional Research Service 8 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues the primary battleground for CWA jurisdiction questions, so long as neither the Administration nor Congress takes steps to define jurisdiction. The government’s view on the key question of the scope of CWA jurisdiction in light of SWANCC and other court rulings came in a legal memorandum issued jointly by EPA and the Corps in January 2003.12 It provides a legal interpretation essentially based on a narrow reading of the Court’s decision, thus allowing federal regulation of some isolated waters to continue (in cases where factors other than the presence of migratory birds may exist, thus allowing for assertion of federal jurisdiction), but it calls for more review by higher levels in the agencies in such cases. Administration press releases said that the guidance demonstrates the government’s commitment to “no-net-loss” wetlands policy. However, it was apparent that the issues remained under discussion, because at the same time, the Administration issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comment on how to define waters that are under the regulatory program’s jurisdiction. The ANPRM did not actually propose rule changes, but it indicated possible ways that Clean Water Act rules might be modified to further limit federal jurisdiction, building on SWANCC and some of the subsequent legal decisions. The government received more than 133,000 comments on the ANPRM, most of them negative, according to EPA and the Corps. Environmentalists and many states opposed changing any rules, saying that the law and previous court rulings call for the broadest possible interpretation of the Clean Water Act (and narrow interpretation of SWANCC), but developers sought changes to clarify interpretation of the SWANCC ruling. In December 2003, EPA and the Corps announced that the Administration would not pursue rule changes concerning federal regulatory jurisdiction over isolated wetlands. The EPA Administrator said that the Administration wanted to avoid a contentious and lengthy rulemaking debate over the issue. Nonetheless, interest groups on all sides have been critical of confusion in implementing the 2003 guidance, which constitutes the main tool for interpreting the reach of the SWANCC decision. Environmentalists remain concerned about diminished protection resulting from the guidance, while developers said that without a new rule, confusing and contradictory interpretations of wetland rules likely will continue. In that vein, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report concluded that Corps districts differ in how they interpret and apply federal rules when determining which waters and wetlands are subject to federal jurisdiction, documenting enough differences that the Corps has begun a comprehensive survey of its district office practices to help promote greater consistency.13 Concerns over inconsistent or confusing regulation of wetlands have also drawn congressional interest.14 Rapanos-Carabell Federal courts continue to have a key role in interpreting and clarifying the SWANCC decision. In February 2006, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases brought by landowners (Rapanos v. United States; Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) seeking to narrow the scope of the CWA permit program as it applies to development of wetlands. The issue in both 12 See http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/Joint_Memo.pdf. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Corps of Engineers Needs to Evaluate Its District Office Practices in Determining Jurisdiction, GAO-04-297, February 2004, 45 pp. 14 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Inconsistent Regulation of Wetlands and Other Waters, Hearing 108-58, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., March 30, 2004. 13 Congressional Research Service 9 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues cases had to do with the reach of the CWA to cover “waters” that were not navigable waters, in the traditional sense, but were connected somehow to navigable waters or “adjacent” to those waters. (The act requires a federal permit to discharge dredged or fill materials into “navigable waters.”) Many legal and other observers hoped that the Court’s ruling in these cases would bring greater clarity about the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction. The Court’s ruling was issued on June 19, 2006 (Rapanos et al., v. United States, 126 S.Ct. 2208 (2006)). In a 5-4 decision, a plurality of the Court, led by Justice Scalia, held that the lower court had applied an incorrect standard to determine whether the wetlands at issue are covered by the CWA. Justice Kennedy joined this plurality to vacate the lower court decisions and remand the cases for further consideration, but he took different positions on most of the substantive issues raised by the cases, as did four other dissenting justices.15 Legal observers suggested that the implications of the ruling (both short-term and long-term) are far from clear. Because the several opinions written by the justices did not draw a clear line regarding what wetlands and other waters are subject to federal jurisdiction, one result has been more case-by-case determinations and continuing litigation. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on issues raised by the Court’s ruling on August 1, 2006. Members and a number of witnesses urged EPA and the Corps to issue new guidance to clarify the scope of the ruling. On June 5, 2007—nearly one year after the Rapanos ruling—EPA and the Corps did issue guidance to enable their field staffs to make CWA jurisdictional determinations in light of the decision. According to the nonbinding guidance, the agencies will assert regulatory jurisdiction over certain waters, such as traditional navigable waters and adjacent wetlands. Jurisdiction over others, such as non-navigable tributaries that do not typically flow year-round and wetlands adjacent to such tributaries, will be determined on a case-by-case basis, to determine if the waters in question have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water. The guidance details how the agencies should evaluate whether there is a significant nexus. The guidance is not intended to increase or decrease CWA jurisdiction, and it does not supersede or nullify the January 2003 guidance, discussed above, which addressed jurisdiction over isolated wetlands in light of SWANCC. In accompanying documents, the agencies said that the Administration was considering a rulemaking in response to the Rapanos decision, but they noted that developing new rules would take more time than issuing the guidance. They also noted that, while the guidance provides more clarity for how jurisdictional determinations will be made concerning non-navigable tributaries and their adjacent wetlands, legal challenges to the scope of CWA jurisdiction are likely to continue. The guidance was effective immediately, but the agencies also solicited public comments and said that further guidance could be issued in the future. Thus, in December 2008, the Corps and EPA issued revised guidance in an effort to clarify the scope of CWA protection, providing more detail on several issues, including how to identify traditional navigable waters and adjacent wetlands. The guidance takes the view that waters are jurisdictional if they satisfy either the plurality or Kennedy tests in Rapanos. The revised guidance also updates the 2007 guidance with more detail for determining whether a wetland is adjacent to a traditional navigable water and whether a tributary of a navigable water is subject to the act—key issues raised by the Rapanos decision.16 15 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33263, The Wetlands Coverage of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Is Revisited by the Supreme Court: Rapanos v. United States, by Robert Meltz and Claudia Copeland. 16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following (continued...) Congressional Research Service 10 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues SWANCC and Rapanos generated confusion beyond what already existed as to the reach of “waters of the United States.” The lack of a majority rationale in Rapanos has led lower courts to extract different tests from the decision for measuring this reach, and Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” concept remains amorphous and undefined. The EPA-Corps guidance was intended to reduce the confusion, but many observers and stakeholders contend that jurisdictional issues remain in dispute throughout the country, leading to costly project delays and uncertain protection of wetland resources. While the issue of how regulatory protection of wetlands is affected by the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions continues to evolve, the remaining responsibility to protect affected wetlands falls on states and localities. Whether states will act to fill in the gap left by removal of some federal jurisdiction is likely to be constrained by budgetary and political pressures, but a few states (Wisconsin and Ohio, for example) have passed new laws or amended regulations to do so. In comments on the 2003 ANPRM, many states said that they do not have authority or financial resources to protect their wetlands, in the absence of federal involvement. Congressional Response Legislation to reverse the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions has been introduced in each Congress since the 107th, including again in the 111th Congress (S. 787, the Clean Water Restoration Act). On June 18, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved, 12-7, an amended version of S. 787—the first such proposal to advance from a congressional committee. As approved by the committee, the bill would amend the CWA to define “waters of the United States” and to use this term to define the jurisdictional reach of the act. The term would be defined to mean: all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, and natural ponds, all tributaries of any of the above waters, and all impoundments of the foregoing. The bill would exclude prior converted cropland and certain waste treatment systems from the term “waters of the United States,” and it would protect, or save, existing regulatory exclusions such as for dredge or fill discharges from normal farming activities. During markup, the committee rejected several amendments that would have struck some of the terms in the new definition (such as mudflats and prairie potholes), but it approved language stating that the CWA’s jurisdiction shall be construed consistent with EPA and Corps interpretation as of January 8, 2001, the day before the SWANCC ruling and consistent with Congress’ constitutional authority. Proponents of the Senate committee legislation argue that Congress must clarify the important issues left unsettled by the Supreme Court’s 2001 and 2006 rulings and by the recent Corps/EPA guidance. Bill supporters argue that the legislation would “reaffirm” what Congress intended when the CWA was enacted in 1972 and what EPA and the Corps have subsequently been practicing until recently, in terms of CWA jurisdiction. It also would delete the word “navigable” from the act, replaced by the term “waters of the United States,” in order to clarify that Congress (...continued) the Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States, December 2, 2008, http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/CWA_Jurisdiction_Following_Rapanos120208.pdf. Congressional Research Service 11 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues intends the purpose of the law to be to broadly protect the quality of the nation’s waters, not just sustain navigability in the traditional sense. But critics assert that the legislation would expand federal authority, and thus would have unintended but foreseeable consequences that are likely to increase confusion, rather than settle it. Critics question the constitutionality of the bill, arguing that, by broadly including U.S. waters in the jurisdiction of the CWA, it exceeds the limits of Congress’s authority under the Constitution. The version approved by the Senate committee includes language stating that the bill shall be construed consistently with “the legislative authority of Congress under the Constitution.” Companion legislation was introduced in the House on April 23, 2010 (H.R. 5088, America’s Commitment to Clean Water Act).17 Like S. 787, the House bill is intended to clarify regulatory scope of the CWA and restore jurisdiction as it had been interpreted prior to the SWANCC and Rapanos rulings. Like the Senate committee bill, H.R. 5088 would delete the word “navigable” from the law and would amend the CWA to define “waters of the United States,” which would become the operational term for jurisdiction. Unlike the Senate committee bill described above, the new definition of that term would be drawn from existing EPA-Corps regulatory definitions, with some modifications. The principal House sponsor, Representative Oberstar, stated that the bill differs from prior proposals (such as H.R. 2421 in the 110th Congress), based on extensive public comments and suggestions. Despite changes from earlier versions, the bill has been criticized based on concern that it would increase the scope of federal jurisdiction, not merely restate what Congress enacted in 1972. In light of the widely differing views of proponents and opponents, future prospects for this legislation are uncertain. One difficulty of legislating changes to the CWA in order to protect wetlands results from the fact that the complex scientific questions about such areas (see discussion above, “Wetlands: Science and Information”) are not easily amenable to precise resolution in law. The debate over revising the act highlights the challenges of using the law to do so. The Bush Administration did not take a position on any legislation to clarify the scope of “waters of the United States” protected under the CWA. Officials of the Obama Administration are on record as favoring legislation that would clarify waters protected by the CWA. In May 2009, Administration officials sent letters to House and Senate committee leaders outlining principles for such legislation, but the letters did not endorse any specific legislative proposal. The letters urged Congress to consider four general principles: • Broadly protect the nation’s waters; • Make the definition of covered waters predictable and manageable; • Promote consistency between CWA and agricultural wetlands programs; and • Recognize long-standing practices, such as exemptions now in effect through regulations and guidance. 18 17 For information on the 111th Congress legislation, see CRS Report R41225, Legislative Approaches to Defining “Waters of the United States”, by Claudia Copeland. 18 Nancy Sutley, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality, et al., letter to Senator Barbara Boxer, Chair, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (and other congressional leaders), May 20, 2009, http://epw.senate.gov/ public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Majority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=64739ae3-802a-23ad-4c30-36fc58cc1014& Region_id=&Issue_id=. Congressional Research Service 12 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Should All Wetlands Be Treated Equally? Under the Section 404 program, there is a perception that all jurisdictional wetlands are treated equally, regardless of size, functions, or values. In reality, this is not the case, because the Corps’ general permits do provide accelerated regulatory decisions for many activities that affect wetlands. However, this perception has led critics to focus on situations where a wetland has little apparent value, but the landowner’s proposal is not approved or the landowner is penalized for altering a wetland without a federal permit. Critics believe that one possible solution may be to have a tiered approach for regulating wetlands. Legislation introduced in past Congresses proposed to establish multiple tiers (typically three)—from highly valuable wetlands that should receive the greatest protection to the least valuable wetlands where alterations might usually be allowed. Some states (New York and some others, for example) use such an approach for stateregulated wetlands. Three questions arise: (1) What are the implications of implementing a classification program? (2) How clearly can a line separating each wetland category be defined? (3) Are there regions where wetlands should be treated differently? Regarding classification, even most wetland protection advocates acknowledge that there are some situations where a wetland designation with total protection is not appropriate. But they fear that classification for different degrees of protection could be a first step toward a major erosion in overall wetland protection. Also, these advocates would probably like to see almost all wetlands presumed to be in the highest protection category unless experts can prove an area should receive a lesser level of protection, while critics who view protection efforts as excessive, would seek the reverse. In response to these concerns, Corps and EPA officials note that existing guidance and regulations already provide substantial flexibility to implement current programs, allowing, for example, less vigorous permit review to small projects with minor environmental impacts. Some types of wetlands are already treated differently. For example, playas and prairie potholes have somewhat different definitions under swampbuster (discussed below), and the effect is to increase the number of acres that are considered as wetlands. However, this differential treatment contributes to questions about federal regulatory consistency on private property. Locating the boundary line of a wetland can be controversial when the line encompasses areas that do not meet the image held by many. Controversy would likely grow if a tiered approach required that lines segment wetland areas. On the other hand, a consistent application of an agreed-on definition may lead to fewer disputes and result in more timely decisions. Some states have far more wetlands than others. Different treatment has been proposed for Alaska because about one-third of the state is designated as wetlands, yet a very small portion has been converted. In the past, legislative proposals have been made to exempt that state from the Section 404 program until 1% of its wetlands have been lost. Agriculture and Wetlands National surveys more than two decades ago indicated that agricultural activities had been responsible for about 80% of wetland loss in the preceding decades, making this topic a focus for policymakers seeking to protect the remaining wetlands. Congress responded by creating programs in farm legislation starting in 1985. Conservation programs in the farm bill use both disincentives and incentives to encourage landowners to protect and restore wetlands. Swampbuster and the Wetlands Reserve Program are Congressional Research Service 13 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues the two largest efforts, but others such as the Conservation Reserve Program’s wetland and buffer acres pilot program and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program are also being used to protect wetlands. The 110th Congress reauthorized farm programs through 2012 (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246). This bill authorized new programs that could further assist wetlands conservation. The most recent wetland loss survey conducted by the NRCS (comparing data from 1997 and 2002) indicates that there was a small annual increase for the first time since these data have been collected, of 26,000 acres.19 However, the agency warns that statistical uncertainties preclude concluding with certainty that gain is actually occurring. Wetlands were a major topic of discussion in debate on the 2008 farm bill. Members of the farm community have expressed a wide range of views about wetland protection, from strong opposition to strong support. These views are frequently framed in the context of two general concerns about wetland protection efforts. First, as a philosophical matter, some object to federal regulation of private lands, regardless of the societal values those lands might provide. Second, many farmers want certainty and predictability about the land they farm to limit their financial risk. Therefore, if wetlands are located on farm property, they want assurances that the boundary line delineating wetlands will remain where located for as long as possible. Swampbuster Swampbuster, enacted in 1985, uses disincentives rather than regulations to protect wetlands on agricultural lands. It removes a farmer’s eligibility from all government price and income support programs for activities such as draining, dredging, filling, leveling or otherwise altering a wetland. Swampbuster has been controversial with farmers concerned about redefining an appropriate federal role in wetland protection on agricultural lands, and with wetland protection advocates concerned about inadequate enforcement. Since 1995, the NRCS has made wetland determinations only in response to requests because of uncertainty over whether changes in regulation or law would modify boundaries that have already been delineated. NRCS has estimated that more than 2.6 million wetland determinations have been made and that more than 4 million may eventually be required. Swampbuster amendments in 1996 (P.L. 104-127) granted producers greater flexibility by making changes, such as: exempting swampbuster penalties when wetlands are voluntarily restored; providing that prior converted wetlands are not to be considered “abandoned” if they remain in agricultural use; and granting good-faith exemptions. They also encourage mitigation, established a mitigation banking pilot program, and repealed required consultation with the FWS. Amendments enacted in the 2008 farm bill require an additional layer of review within USDA for compliance with swampbuster. Other Agricultural Wetlands Programs Under the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), enacted in 1990, landowners receive payments for placing easements on farmed wetlands. It provides long-term technical and financial assistance to landowners with the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property, and to establish wildlife practices and protection. WRP offers permanent easements that pay 100% of the value of an easement and up to 100% of easement restoration costs, and 30-year easements 19 See http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/2003/nri03wetlands.html. Congressional Research Service 14 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues that pay up to 75% of the value of an easement and up to 75% of easement restoration costs. WRP also offers restoration cost-share agreements to restore wetland functions and values without placing an easement on enrolled acres. Through May 2010, projects totaling nearly 2.3 million acres have been enrolled in the program, in 22 states and Puerto Rico. A majority of the easements are in five states, each with more than 100,000 acres: Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Florida, and California. Most of the land is enrolled under permanent or 30-year easements, while only about 10% is enrolled under 10-year restoration cost-share agreements, according to NRCS. Strong farmer interest led Congress to raise the WRP enrollment ceiling in both the 2002 and 2008 farm bills. The 2008 legislation increased the WRP maximum enrollment cap from 2.275 million acres to 3.014 million acres and expanded eligible lands to include certain types of private and tribal wetlands, croplands, and grasslands, as well as lands that meet the habitat needs of wildlife species. The bill made certain program changes, including specifying criteria for ranking program applications, and requiring USDA to submit a report to Congress on long-term conservation easements under the program. The legislation authorized a new Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program, which will allow USDA to enter into agreements with states in order to leverage federal funds for wetlands protection and enhancement. 20 The 2002 farm bill expanded the 500,000-acre wetland and buffer acreage pilot program within the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to a 1-million-acre program available nationwide. CRP allows producers to enter into 10- to 15-year contracts to install certain conservation practices. The 2008 farm bill amended the pilot program to increase the amount of acreage that states can enroll (up to 100,000 acres, or a national maximum of one million acres). Participants must agree to restore wetland hydrology, establish appropriate vegetation, and refrain from commercial use of the land. The wetland and buffer program may become more important to overall protection efforts in the wake of the SWANCC decision, discussed above, which limited the reach of the Section 404 permit program to many small wetlands that are isolated from navigable waterways. Through April 2010, more than 31 million acres had been enrolled in this program through more than 739,000 contracts on 414,000 farms. In August 2004, the Administration announced a new Wetland Restoration Initiative to allow enrollment of up to 250,000 acres of large wetland complexes and playa lakes located outside the 100-year floodplain in the CRP after October 1, 2004. The Administration estimated that implementation of this initiative will cost $200 million. Participants receive incentive payments to help pay for restoring the hydrology of the site, as well as rental payments and cost sharing assistance to install eligible conservation practices. The 2008 farm bill included amendments affecting several agriculture conservation programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Farmland Protection Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, in ways that may have incidental protection benefits for wetlands, because of higher funding levels or because of program changes. For example, EQIP supports the installation or implementation of structural and management practices, and the 2008 farm bill expanded the program to include practices that enhance wetlands. Finally, some programs could less directly help protect wetlands, including the Conservation Security Program (renamed the Conservation Stewardship Program), which provides payments to install and maintain practices on agricultural lands; the new Agricultural 20 USDA issued regulations to implement these changes to the Wetlands Reserve Program in January 2009. See 74 Federal Register 2317 (Jan. 15, 2009). Congressional Research Service 15 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Water Enhancement Program (replacing the previous Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program; it is funded through EQIP), which is designed to address water quality and quantity concerns on agricultural land; and several other programs to better manage water resources.21 Agricultural Wetlands and the Section 404 Program The CWA Section 404 program applies to qualified wetlands in all locations, including agricultural lands. But the Corps and EPA exempt “prior converted lands” (wetlands modified for agricultural purposes before 1985) from Section 404 permit requirements under a memorandum of agreement (MOA), and since 1977 the Clean Water Act has exempted “normal farming activities.” The Supreme Court’s SWANCC decision exempts certain isolated wetlands from Corps jurisdiction; NRCS estimated that about 8 million acres in agricultural locations might be exempted by this decision. While these exemptions and the MOA displease some protection advocates, they probably dampened some of the criticism from farming interests over federal regulation of private lands. On the other hand, the prospect that Congress might enact legislation to reverse the Court’s 2001 and 2006 rulings, discussed above, has particularly alarmed farm groups, who fear that changes in law or regulations could negatively affect their activities. Because of differences between the CWA and farm bill on the jurisdictional status of certain wetlands (e.g., isolated wetlands may be regulated differently by federal agencies), in 2005 the Corps and NRCS signed a Memorandum of Understanding and issued joint guidance clarifying circumstances where wetlands delineation made by one agency can be accepted for determining the jurisdiction of the other agency. 22 Some of the wetlands that fall outside Section 404 requirements as a result of judicial decisions can now be protected if landowners decide to enroll them into the revised farmable wetlands program or under other new initiatives. Private Property Rights and Landowner Compensation An estimated 74% of all remaining wetlands in the coterminous states are on private lands. Questions of federal regulation of private property stem from the argument that land owners should be compensated when a “taking” occurs and alternative uses are prohibited or restrictions on use are imposed to protect wetland values. The U.S. Constitution provides that property owners shall be compensated if private property is “taken” by government action. The courts generally have found that compensation is not required unless all reasonable uses are precluded. Many individuals or companies purchase land with the expectation that they can alter it. If that ability is denied, they contend, then the land is greatly reduced in value. Many argue that a taking should be recognized when a site is designated as a wetland. In 2002, the Supreme Court held that a Rhode Island man, who had acquired property after the state enacted wetlands regulation affecting the parcel, is not automatically prevented from bringing an action to recover compensation from the state. Instead, the court ruled that the property retained some economic use after the state’s action. (Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2002)). 21 For more information on these provisions, see CRS Report RL34557, Conservation Provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill, by Tadlock Cowan, Renée Johnson, and Megan Stubbs. 22 See http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Documents/cecwo/reg/mou/foodsecurity_cleanwateract.pdf. Congressional Research Service 16 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Congress has explored these wetlands property rights issues on several occasions. An example is an October 2001 hearing by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment.23 Recent Congresses considered, but did not enact, property rights protection proposals. Democratic leadership appears less interested in bringing attention to this topic. The Bush Administration did not state an official position on these types of proposals.24 Wetland Restoration and Mitigation Federal wetland policies during the past 20 years have increasingly emphasized restoration of wetland areas. Much of this restoration occurs as part of efforts to mitigate the loss of wetlands at other sites. The mitigation concept has broad appeal, but implementation has left a conflicting record. Examination of this record, presented in a June 2001 report from the National Research Council, found it to be wanting. The NRC report said that mitigation projects called for in permits affecting wetlands were not meeting the federal government’s “no net loss” policy goal for wetlands function. 25 Likewise, a 2001 GAO report criticized the ability of the Corps to track the impact of projects under its current mitigation program that allows in-lieu-fee mitigation projects in exchange for issuing permits allowing wetlands development. 26 Both scientists and policymakers debate whether it is possible to restore or create wetlands with ecological and other functions equivalent to or better than those of natural wetlands that have been lost over time. Results so far seem to vary, depending on the type of wetland and the level of commitment to monitoring and maintenance. Congress has repeatedly endorsed mitigation in recent years. The Louisiana Experience Much of the attention to wetland restoration has focused on Louisiana, where an estimated 80% of the total loss of U.S. coastal wetlands has occurred and where about 40% of U.S. coastal wetlands remaining in the lower 48 states are located (coastal wetlands are about 5% of all U.S. wetlands). Changes to Louisiana’s coastal area result from a combination of natural environmental processes (erosion, saltwater intrusion into fresh systems, sea level rise) and human-related activities, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Wetland loss has occurred naturally for centuries, but until recently, land losses have been counterbalanced by various natural wetland-building processes. It is estimated that Louisiana has lost more than 2,300 square miles of wetlands since the 1930s due to development and engineering projects such as levees and canals.27 As a result, the natural flow of Mississippi River and floodwaters to feed sediment to the marshes has been reduced. 23 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, The Wetland Permitting Process: Is It Working Fairly? Hearing 107-50, 107th Cong., 1st sess., October 3, 2001. 24 For more information, see CRS Report RL30423, Wetlands Regulation and the Law of Property Rights “Takings”, by Robert Meltz. 25 National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act (Washington, DC: 2001), 267 pp. 26 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Wetlands Protection: Assessments Needed to Determine the Effectiveness of In-Lieu-Fee Mitigation, GAO-01-325, 75 pp. 27 Loss rates have been calculated by U.S. Geological Survey’s Nation Wetlands Research Center, which has published a number of reports describing past and predicted loss rates. Congressional Research Service 17 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Saltwater has invaded the brackish estuaries, destroying vegetation and areas that are needed for fish, shellfish, and wildlife. In response to these losses, Congress authorized a task force, led by the Corps, to prepare a list of coastal wetland restoration projects in the state, and also provided funding to plan and carry out restoration projects in this and other coastal states under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act of 1990, also known as the Breaux Act.28 The projects range from reintroduction of freshwater and diversion of sediment to construction of shoreline barriers and planting of vegetation. In total, the estimated total cost to complete all 147 approved projects is $1.78 billion. In a 2007 report, GAO reported that it is impossible to determine the collective success of restoring coastal wetlands in Louisiana, because of an inadequate approach to monitoring. GAO had reviewed the Breaux Act program to identify the types of projects that have been designed and lessons that have been learned from 74 projects that have been completed so far.29 Others, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, disagreed with GAO’s findings, observing that long-term data being provided through ongoing project monitoring are intended to yield insight into qualitative and quantitative project performance. In the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, multiple legislative proposals were introduced to fund additional restoration projects already planned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and to explore other opportunities that would restore and stabilize wetlands in southern Louisiana. Before the hurricanes, Congress was considering legislation that would have provided about $2 billion to the restoration effort. Since the 2005 hurricanes, more expansive options costing up to $14 billion that were proposed in the 1998 report Coast 2050 have also been considered. 30 S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, was passed during the final days of the 109th Congress.31 This legislation provides additional revenues to states adjacent to offshore oil and gas production activities. One of the purposes for which these revenues can be spent is wetland restoration, and the availability of these funds may affect the amount and scale of wetland restoration activity in the central Gulf Coast. Concern for Louisiana’s coastal wetlands has been heightened by the oil spill following the April 20 explosion of BP’s drilling rig, the Deepwater Horizon, in the Gulf of Mexico. Although efforts are focused on preventing oil from reaching coastal shorelines, some oil escapes capture and is pushed by wind and tides towards land. The degrees of impacts of oil on wetland vegetation are variable and complex and can be both acute and chronic, ranging from short-term disruption of plant functioning to mortality. The primary acute damage to the marshes is that plants, which hold the soil in place and stabilize shoreline, will suffocate and die, especially if multiple coatings of oil occur. Once vegetation dies, the soil collapses. Then the soil becomes flooded, and plants cannot re-grow. If plants cannot re-establish, soil erosion is accelerated, giving rise to even more flooding and further wetland loss. If oil penetrates into the sediments, roots are continuously exposed to oil, with chronic toxicity making production of new shoots problematic. 28 For information on this program, see CRS Report RS22467, Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA): Effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on Implementation, by Jeffrey A. Zinn. 29 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Coastal Wetlands: Lessons Learned from Past Efforts in Louisiana Could Help Future Restoration and Protection, GAO-08-130, 57 p. 30 For a more detailed discussion of the effects of the hurricanes on planning for wetland restoration, see CRS Report RS22276, Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Restoration After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, by Jeffrey A. Zinn. 31 S. 3711 was attached to a broad tax relief measure that was enacted in December 2006 (H.R. 6111, P.L. 109-432). For additional information, see CRS Report RL33493, Outer Continental Shelf: Debate Over Oil and Gas Leasing and Revenue Sharing, by Marc Humphries. Congressional Research Service 18 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Consequently, plant recovery is diminished, and eventually land loss occurs. In addition to direct impacts on plants, oil that reaches wetlands also affects animals that utilize wetlands during their life cycle, especially benthic organisms which reside in the sediments and are a foundation of the food chain.32 Public and private efforts are underway to protect the wetlands from oil that is moving through Gulf waters towards coastal areas, but scientists believe that if high tides and wind push oil into the marshes, the grasses and other vegetation that provide habitat for fish and wildlife are likely to be destroyed. Wetland plants can be affected both by oil that floats over the surface of the marsh and by oil that has been incorporated into sediment. There are several possible approaches to cleaning up oil that reaches coastal wetlands—e.g., mechanical recovery, flushing with water, burning, bioremediation, and doing nothing—and competing theories of different approaches in different places. Moreover, experts acknowledge that there are tradeoffs for each approach. While oil is still flowing from the Deepwater Horizon site, cleanup of marshes is limited to triage of heavily oiled marshes and wetlands, because experts are concerned that greater harm than good could be done to the sensitive environmental ecosystems. Once the oil stops flowing, recovery could take many years, and experts say that it is still too early to know the full scope of damages. 33 Other Federal Protection Efforts Many federal agencies have been active in wetland improvement efforts in recent years. In particular, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has been promoting the success of its Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, which Congress reauthorized through FY2011 in 2006 (P.L. 109-294). Through voluntary agreements, the Partners program provides technical assistance and cost share incentives directly to landowners for wetland restoration projects on private lands.34 FWS also administers the National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program. Under this program, federal grants, matched by state and local contributions, as well as from private landowners and conservation groups, are used to acquire, restore or enhance coastal wetlands and adjacent uplands to provide long-term conservation benefits to fish, wildlife and their habitat. The federal government generally provides 50% of the total costs of a project, but the federal share can be increased to 75% if the state mains a fund for acquiring coastal wetlands. Since 1992, about $183 million in grants have been awarded to 25 coastal states and one U.S. Territory for projects involving 250,000 acres of coastal wetland ecosystems. 35 Other programs also restore and protect domestic and international wetlands. One of these derives from the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, reauthorized through FY2012 in P.L. 109322 with an appropriations ceiling of $75 million annually. This act provides grants for wetland conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The FWS has combined funding for this program with several other laws into what it calls the North American Wetlands 32 Dennis F. Whigham, Stephen W. Broome, and Curtis J. Richardson, et al., Statement of the Environmental Concerns Committee, Society of Wetland Scientists, “The Deepwater Horizon Disaster and Wetlands,” http://www.sws.org/docs/ SWS_OilEffectsOnWetlands.pdf. 33 For additional information, see CRS Report R41311, The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Coastal Wetland and Wildlife Impacts and Response, by M. Lynne Corn and Claudia Copeland. 34 See http://ecos.fws.gov/partners/viewContent.do?viewPage=partners. 35 For information, see http://www.fws.gov/coastal/coastalgrants/. Congressional Research Service 19 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Conservation Fund. According to the FWS, through FY2009, the United States and its 4,000 domestic and international partners have protected, restored, or enhanced nearly 28 million acres of wetlands through more than 1,900 projects. Under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, more commonly known as the Ramsar Convention, the United States is one of 159 nations that have agreed to slow the rate of wetlands loss by designating wetland sites of international importance. These nations have designated 1,880 sites, totaling 375 million acres, since the convention was adopted in 1971. The United States has designated 25 sites pursuant to the convention, encompassing 3.3 million acres. Mitigation Mitigation also has become an important cornerstone of the Section 404 program in recent years. A 1990 MOA signed by the agencies with regulatory responsibilities (EPA and the Corps) outlines a sequence of three steps leading to mitigation: first, activities in wetlands should be avoided when possible; second, when they can not be avoided, impacts should be minimized; and third, where minimum impacts are still unacceptable, mitigation is appropriate. It directs that mitigated wetland acreage be replaced on a one-for-one functional basis. Therefore, mitigation may be required as a condition of a Section 404 permit. Some wetland protection advocates are critical of mitigation, which they view as justifying destruction of wetlands. They believe that the Section 404 permit program should be an inducement to avoid damaging wetland areas. These critics also contend that adverse impacts on wetland values are often not fully mitigated and that mitigation measures, even if well-designed, are not adequately monitored or maintained. Supporters of current efforts counter that they generally work as envisioned, but little data exist to support this view. Questions about implementation of the 1990 MOA and controversies over the feasibility of compensating for wetland losses further complicate the wetland protection debate. In response to criticism in the NRC and GAO reports on mitigation (discussed above), in November 2001, the Corps issued new guidance to strengthen the standards on compensating for wetlands lost to development. The guidance was criticized by environmental groups and some Members of Congress for weakening rather than strengthening mitigation requirements and for the Corps’ failure to consult with other federal agencies. In December 2002, the Corps and EPA released an action plan including 17 items that both agencies believe will improve the effectiveness of wetlands restoration efforts.36 In March 2008, the Corps and EPA promulgated a mitigation rule to replace the 1990 MOA with clearer requirements on what will be considered a successful project to compensate for wetlands lost to activities like construction, mining, and agriculture.37 The rule sets performance standards and criteria for three types of wetlands mitigation: mitigation banks, in-lieu programs, and permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation. It sets standards to mitigate the loss of wetlands and associated aquatic resources and is intended to improve the planning, implementation, and management of compensatory mitigation projects designed to restore aquatic resources that are 36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan, December 24, 2002.” See http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/map1226withsign.pdf. 37 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency, “Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, Final Rule,” 73 Federal Register 19594, April 10, 2008. Congressional Research Service 20 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues affected by activities that disturb a half-acre or more of wetlands. It also is designed to help ensure no net loss of wetlands by addressing key recommendations raised in the 2001 NRC report. Under the rule, all compensation projects must have mitigation plans that include 12 fundamental components, such as objectives, site selection criteria, a mitigation work plan, and a maintenance plan.38 The concept of “mitigation banks,” in which wetlands are created, restored, or enhanced in advance to serve as “credits” that may be used or acquired by permit applicants when they are required to mitigate impacts of their activities, is widely endorsed. Numerous public and private banks have been established, but many believe that it is too early to assess their success. In a study of mitigation, the Environmental Law Institute determined that as of 2005, there were 330 active banks, 75 sold out banks, and 169 banks seeking approval to operate.39 Provisions in several laws, such as the 1996 farm bill and the 1998 Transportation Equity Act (TEA-21), endorse the mitigation banking concept. In November 2003, Congress enacted wetlands mitigation provisions as part of the FY2004 Department of Defense (DOD) authorization act (P.L. 108-136). Section 314 of that act directed DOD to make payments to wetland mitigation banking programs in instances where military construction projects would result or could result in destruction of or impacts to wetlands. For Additional Reading Connolly, Kim Diana, Stephen M. Johnson, Douglas R. Williams. Wetlands Law and Policy, Understanding Section 404. American Bar Association, Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources. 2005. 528 pp. Environmental Law Institute. Anchoring the Clean Water Act, Congress’s Constitutional Sources of Power to Protect the Nation’s Waters. An Environmental Law Institute White Paper. July 2007. http://www.endangeredlaws.org/pdf/ELI_Anchoring_the_CWA_2007.pdf ——. State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends & Model Approaches, a 50-state study by the Environmental Law Institute, March 2008. 68 pp. Kusler, Jon and Teresa Opheim. Our National Wetland Heritage: A Protection Guide. Environmental Law Institute. [Washington] 1996. 149 pp. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. [Washington] 2001. 267 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Wetlands and Agriculture: Private Interests and Public Benefits, by Ralph Heimlich et al. [Washington] 2001, 123 pp. Agricultural Economic Report No. 765. U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coterminous United States 1998-2004. [Washington] 2006. 54 pp. 38 Information on compensatory mitigation can be found at http://www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation/. For more information on mitigation generally, and mitigation banks specifically, see Environmental Law Institute, 2005 Status Report on Compensatory Mitigation in the United States, April 2006, 105 pp. 39 Congressional Research Service 21 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues U.S. Government Accountability Office. Wetlands Protection: Assessments Needed to Determine the Effectiveness of In-Lieu-Fee Mitigation. (GAO-01-325) [Washington] May 2001. 75 pp. ——. Waters and Wetlands: Corps of Engineers Needs to Evaluate District Office Practices in Determining Jurisdiction. (GAO-04-297) [Washington] February 2004. 45 pp. Author Contact Information Claudia Copeland Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy ccopeland@crs.loc.gov, 7-7227 Congressional Research Service 22