Ch. 4— Wetland Programs That Affect ttie Use of Wetlands • 81 



2. Commodity programs reduce the risk associ- 

 ated with growing certain crops. Guaranteed 

 floor prices may improve the long-term finan- 

 cial feasibility of converting wetlands and 

 make agricultural lenders more willing to fi- 

 nance conversion operations. In the case of 

 soybeans, which have only a floor price and 

 not the other features of commodity programs 

 for other crops, market prices have until very 

 recently remained well above the floor price, 

 and the program hardly has been used. 



3. Commodity programs for most crops (not soy- 

 beans) set restrictions on the acreage that a 

 participating farmer can plant in a particular 

 crop each year. Usually the farmer must not 

 plant about 10 percent of his "normal crop 

 acreage" (NCA). However, NCA can be in- 

 creased by draining wetlands, allowing the 

 farmer to plant more acreage in the future. 

 Although a farmer who planted more than the 

 allowable acreage in a particular year would 

 not be eligible for commodity payments that 

 year (e.g. , by converting wetlands), his NCA 



would be increased in subsequent yeairs. How- 

 ever, for the 1983 farm program the Congress 

 mandated that commodity payments would 

 generally be based on the acreage planted in 

 the preceding year. Therefore, no lands that 

 were added to production in 1982 are included 

 in NCA this year. It is expected that farmers 

 will be able to increase their acreages some- 

 time in the future. 

 4. Commodity programs (at least in the past) en- 

 couraged land management practices that 

 may have adverse impacts on wetlands. For 

 example, summer fallow for wheat can result 

 in erosion that fills in surrounding wetlands. 

 In 1977, Congress required proper soil con- 

 servation measures on summer-fallow acreage 

 eligible for the wheat program. However, as 

 with other commodity programs, few farmers 

 participated until recently, when crop prices 

 dropped. Thus, many farmers may not be fol- 

 lowing conservation practices on summer 

 fallow. 



STATE PROGRAMS 



States vary greatly in their approaches and 

 attitudes toward wetland protection. Even within 

 States, different agencies may take different posi- 

 tions on wedand protection and development — e.g., 

 as with Federal entities. State environmental agen- 

 cies and State transportation and water-resource 

 agencies often find themselves in disagreement. The 

 direction of State programs is open to change by 

 reason of changes in political leadership and 

 changes in State fiscal health, among others. De- 

 spite these caveats, a number of observations may 

 be made about State wetland protection efforts. 



Wetland Regulation 



More than a dozen States have permitting pro- 

 grams specifically directed at controlling the use of 

 wedands. Most of these programs are administered 

 directly by State agencies, although local govern- 

 ments may be given the authority to veto approval 

 of some projects. A few States have State standard- 



setting for regulation. Local governments formu- 

 late, administer, and enforce regulations meeting 

 or exceeding wetland protection set by the State. 

 In States where local programs dominate, the States 

 may retain the authority to review local decisions 

 or to intervene only where localities fail to create 

 adequate controls. States also may provide techni- 

 cal assistance to local program administrators. 



A few States have established innovative regula- 

 tory programs for wetland protection that differ 

 from the more typical permit or zoning approaches. 

 For example, in Massachusetts, the Coastal and In- 

 land Wetland Restriction Acts place deed restric- 

 tions on wetland property to limit use to water- 

 related uses such as docks, recreation, farming, and 

 driveways into unrestricted land. Thus far, over 

 40,000 of the estimated 60,000 acres of coastal wet- 

 lands have been subjected to the law and only 5,000 

 acres of inland wetlands have been restricted. An- 

 other example of an innovative program is the Min- 

 nesota Protected Waters Program and its relation- 



