Ch. 9— Capabilities of the States in Managing ttte Use of Wetlands • 193 



dinates the collection of comments of the Fed- 

 eral agencies and determines the Federal con- 

 ditions that must be included if the State de- 

 cides to issue the permit. If Federal agencies 



have objections that cannot be resolved or if 

 they recommend deniaJ, the general-permit 

 processing is terminated, and the application 

 is processed as an individual permit. 



STATE-PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS 



WhUe a large number of States actively regulate 

 at least some of their wetlands, many face prob- 

 lems that significantly hamper their efforts. These 

 problems are described below in approximate order 

 of importance, according to State responses to the 

 OTA survey. The following discussion should not 

 be taken as characterizing all States, yet all but three 

 States indicated that at least one of the problems 

 was of major concern. Additonal problems that 

 were noted in the case studies also are presented. 



Funding 



For most of those States with wetland programs, 

 the major implementation problem is inadequate 

 funding for hiring a sufficient number of staff with 

 appropriate expertise and for monitoring and en- 

 forcement of permitted activities.* For example, 

 the Florida pay scale is lower than that of the Corps, 

 and there is significant personnel turnover. Also, 

 enforcement budgets at the State level may be in- 

 adequate to provide experienced attorneys and ex- 

 pert witnesses. For this reason, Florida often relies 

 on the Corps to pursue enforcement and will set- 

 de for after-the-fact permits rather than try to seek 

 penalties and restoration (1). 



Difficulties often are related to reduced Federal 

 funding for wetland programs and coastal-zone 

 management activities. Federal assistance has been 

 important to States, for example, in developing in- 

 ventories, in setting up coastal programs, and in 

 acquiring wetlands. Cutbacks in Federal programs 

 directly affect the capabilities of many States and 

 localities. For example, OCRM is phasing out its 

 grants to States with approved coastal-zone pro- 

 grams. In several cases, funding will be lost for half 

 to all of State staff dealing with coastal wetlands. 



'Massachusetts, responding to the request on the survey to rank 

 problems in importance, responded "funding, funding, and funding, 

 in that order of priority." 



State acquisition efforts also have been hampered 

 by the elimination of funding from the Land Water 

 Conservation Fund.* 



Even more serious than Federal cutbacks is the 

 budgetary crisis confronting many State govern- 

 ments.** Wedand-program budgets generally have 

 not kept pace with inflation, and in most cases, 

 have been static. They have even been projected 

 to decline in the future. Few States have come up 

 with replacements for the Federal funding that will 

 be lost, and few programs, whether dependent on 

 Federal funding or not, are likely to fare well when 

 making funding requests from financially strapped 

 State legislatures. A major factor behind low fund- 

 ing is the absence of legislative and public support 

 for wetland protection, especially when such pro- 

 tection appears to conflict with development activ- 

 ities. 



General Attitudes Toward Wetlands 



States and regions within States differ radically 

 in the awareness and attitudes of legislators and 

 residents toward wetland values and wetland-pro- 

 tection programs. Unlike coastal wetlands, which 

 in many cases are of great importance to industries 

 such as fishing and tourism, inland wetlands, es- 

 pecially those outside of flyways for waterfowl, have 

 not been as firmly connected in the public mind 

 with functional services and economic benefits. 

 Based on State responses to OTA's questionnaire, 



'A few States also have received grants from EPA to study the 

 feasibility of assuming the 404 program. States receiving grants have 

 said that such funding is essential if assumption eventually is to take 

 place . 



"Michigan, for example, stated that owing to budget cutbacks, 

 it does not have enough personnel to administer "most effectively" 

 all aspects of the program. Applications for permits are getting proc- 

 essed in a timely fashion, but other important aspects of the program 

 are not being implemented. 



