188 • Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation 



Other coastal States indicated that 404 plays an im- 

 portant role in protecting coastal wetlands. 



The coverage of inland wetlands by coastal States 

 is varied: 17 coastal States indicated that their in- 

 land wetlands are not well protected by State pro- 

 grams; 7 indicated that they provide protection for 

 most such wetlands. For the 20 inland States, pro- 

 grams provide little coverage to wetlands outside 

 of small areas under direct State management. 

 Isolated wetlands generally are not well regulated 

 in most States. 



Even for States with wetland regulatory pro- 

 grams, there may be gaps in wetlands coverage. 

 State programs often exempt some activities from 

 permitting requirements, such as agriculture, mos- 

 quito control, public utility projects, and actions 

 of local government (8). Florida provides a good 

 example of a State that does not regjulate some of 

 the activities that threaten wetlands the most. Al- 

 though the Florida dredge-and-fUl laws do not reg- 

 ulate drainage activities, the South Florida Water 

 Management District does have some control over 

 drainage activities by requiring permits for the con- 

 struction and operation of surface water manage- 

 ment systems. However, exemptions are provided 

 for agricultural and silvicultural activities. Drainage 

 of lands for agriculture is often the first step in 

 destroying wedands that are used eventually for ur- 

 ban development (1). 



Some State laws encourage the conversion of wet- 

 lands. In particular, some drainage programs are 

 carried out by State agencies and some private 

 drainage is subsidized (by Kentucky, Ohio, and 

 Nebraska). For example, although State law in Ne- 

 braska charges one agency to protect wildlife hab- 

 itats and another to protect water quEility, a third 

 agency is required by law to plan for draining wet- 

 lands and county boards are required to drain areas 

 upon petition by owners. The 1975 Nebraska 

 Groundwater Management Act also states that all 

 irrigation runoff must be retained on the irrigator's 

 property. This stipulation has increased the use of 

 dugouts and reuse pits in the Rainwater Basin, 

 leading to wetland flooding and creating opportu- 

 nities for wetland drainage (6). 



Expenditures and staffing for wetland-related 

 State regulatory activities are highly variable. Agen- 

 cy personnel with wetland responsibilities often 



carry out other duties as well, although personnel 

 from other agencies may assist in monitoring wet- 

 land areas for unpermitted activities in the course 

 of other work. Asked by the OTA survey to list 

 numbers and types of personnel and budgetary al- 

 locations devoted to State wetland-protection ef- 

 forts, most States listed programs and budgets with- 

 out breaking out wetland-related components. The 

 number of employees working part time or fuU time 

 on wetland matters ranged from 1 to over 20. Of 

 States listing budgets that can be traced to wetlands, 

 figures range from $12,000 to over $100,000 in 10 

 States. Six States indicated almost no staffing and 

 budget allocations for wetland management. 



Most States do not have permitting programs 

 solely concerned with wetlands. Instead, they rely 

 on Federal programs. State influence on some Fed- 

 eral programs. State wedand-acquisition programs, 

 and other State programs that incidentally cover 

 some development activities on some wetlands and 

 cover those activities that occur beyond the bound- 

 aries of wetlands yet may have an adverse effect 

 on them. State standard-setting for local regulation 

 also is present in many States. 



Roughly half of the States without wetland pro- 

 grams listed State influence on Federal actions as 

 their most important means of controlling wedand 

 use. In some cases. State certification of projects 

 through section 401 of CWA and comments on 404 

 applications are used as substitutes for the creation 

 of State programs that would create political con- 

 troversies. Requirements for Federal consistency 

 with State coastal-management programs are also 

 an important tool. For example, although South 

 Carolina does not regulate development activities 

 in freshwater wetlands, it does have a policy for 

 their protection in its Coastal Zone Act. Federal 

 actions in the coastal zone, including all 404 per- 

 mitting, must be consistent with this policy (10). 



States may also influence Federal actions (and 

 actions of other State agencies) by developing 

 resource information and preparing management 

 plans and guidelines. For example, the Resource 

 Agency in California prepared the Delta Master 

 Recreation Plan and Waterways Use Program. Al- 

 though the agency has no direct authority to im- 

 plement the plan, the management guidelines for 

 natural tidal and nontidal marshes and riparian 



