194 • Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation 



lack of support of wetlands programs apparently 

 is due to many factors, including: 



• Lack of awareness of wetland values. A few 

 States (e.g., Tennessee, West Virginia, Kan- 

 sas) commented that most residents are unfa- 

 miliar with wetland values and are unaware 

 of wetland-protection programs such as 404. 



• Opposition to land use controls. In some States 

 (e.g., Colorado, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Ten- 

 nessee), there is strong objection to wetland 

 programs that appear to create de facto land 

 use controls on private property. 



• Sensitivity to regulatory costs and the desire 

 to promote development. In many States, es- 

 pecially ones in which agriculture is an impor- 

 tant industry (e.g., Florida), legislative and 

 public sentiment tends to place a higher priori- 

 ty on development than on wetland preserva- 

 tion when the two goals conflict. Agencies in 

 some States may be forced to bow to political 

 pressure and to allow development that they 

 otherwise would deny or modify. 



A few quotes from State responses are indicative 

 of general attitudes: 



Agriculture still remains top priority with Iowa. 

 Wetland alterations are generally accepted by pub- 

 lic as well as elected officicds. 



Iowa 



Any program that was solely designed to pro- 

 tect wetlands is not politically feasible in Wyoming. 



Wyoming 



Although the intrinsic values of wetlands are rec- 

 ognized by all State agencies whose functions im- 

 pinge on wetlands, and a few are strong advocates 

 of wetland protection, the entire question of 

 whether wetlands should be protected or regulated 

 by government has not been addressed by the State 

 (Arkansas) and there is little enthusiasm for doing 

 so now. 



Arkansas 



To illustrate further, the California Coastal Com- 

 mission regulates some wedand-alteration activities 

 in the coastal zone where the boundary is subject 

 to political manipulation. The California Legisla- 

 ture has changed the boundary several times (4). 

 The only statewide protection given to wetlands is 

 provided indirectly through water-quality author- 

 ities who require permits for the discharge of pol- 



lutants into State waters. However, the effect of 

 discharges upon wetlands usually is not a separate 

 consideration in the permit process, which focuses 

 on water quality, especially the quality of water used 

 by people. Wetland habitat values are rarely con- 

 sidered. 



Monitoring and Enforcement 



Monitoring and enforcement was mentioned as 

 a problem by 14 States and was ranked first in im- 

 portance by 3; other sources also have concluded 

 that this is a serious problem for many States. Some 

 States undertake site inspections for all permitted 

 development activities at least once during construc- 

 tion and after project completion. In other States, 

 monitoring is less comprehensive. Inland wedands 

 are particularly neglected (9). 



States experience even greater difficulties with 

 enforcement. According to one source, agencies 

 seeking administrative action in case of violations 

 are limited in some States to seeking injunctions 

 or issuing temporary cease-and-desist orders, with 

 the assistance of State or local prosecutors. Agen- 

 cies in such cases do not have the power to impose 

 fines or criminal citations; where penalties are avail- 

 able, they may be too low to constitute effective de- 

 terrents (9). It is also sometimes difficult to get State 

 attorneys general to prosecute wetland violators. 

 Some States turn prosecution over to local author- 

 ities, who are often subject to political pressure. At 

 both State and local levels, prosecutors are reluc- 

 tant to prosecute small violations and even in cases 

 of large violations have more pressing priorities than 

 wetland cases. Although compliance with some 

 State laws generally may be good, some States have 

 difficulty in obtaining restoration for those illegal 

 fills that do take place (11). 



Inadequate Technical Information 

 and Expertise 



A major problem hampering many States is the 

 lack of information regarding the wedand resources 

 of their area. Most States have litde data on such 

 things as the location, size, vegetation types, and 

 wildlife habitat values of wetland areas covered 

 under State programs. Some States sav tK«><' i- — — 



