tile lines run in any and all directions in an effort to provide each of a group 

 of isolated wet spots with its own drainage outlet. In general field drainage, 

 large continuous field areas are drained, and subsurface tile lines and ditches 

 are usually laid out in a neat geometric pattern. The per acre cost of 

 installing the drainage equipment varied considerably. It was $143 per acre for 

 ditch drainage in west-central Minnesota, $514 per acre for subsurface tile 

 drainage in west-central Minnesota, and $374 per acre for general field drainage 

 in south-central Minnesota. All net return and cost data are for 1981, in 1980 

 dollars. 



Thus despite the fact that the Federal Government dismantled all direct 

 subsidization of on-farm wetland drainage by farmers in 1977, the incentive to 

 drain remains high. Moreover, Federal regional flood control investment programs 

 are an important indirect means of subsidizing private on-farm investment 

 activity. 



There are a number of factors to be considered in comparing the private 

 and public (regional) returns to enrolling wetland acreage in the U.S. Fish and 

 Wildlife Service's easement payment program with the public and private returns 

 to drainage. Leitch considers some of these factors. One consideration is the 

 nonpecuniary returns to drainage investment. Leitch estimates that the value 

 of estimating a nuisance wetland may be $30-$60 per acre per year. He also cites 

 lack of information (the cost of obtaining information) about the benefits of 

 wetlands preservation programs as a factor generating drainage activity in 

 Minnesota. 



Still another factor to be considered is the effect on regional incomes 

 and employment of withdrawing an acre of drained wetland from crop production 

 and enrolling it in one of the preservation programs. Leitch asserts that there 

 is a net gain in regional employment and incomes from enrolling west-central 

 Minnesota wetland acreage in one of the preservation programs. The income 

 received from the payments is more likely to be spent locally than would a 

 similar sum received as crop payments. The structure of the regional economy 

 for this part of Minnesota plays a part in the net regional impact. In 

 Minnesota, the economy is structured for both agriculture and tourism. In a more 

 predominantly agricultural region, such as North Dakota, there might be a slight 

 net loss of regional jobs and income. 



Leitch's study assumed that there only 1% of the land was controlled by 

 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If a larger fraction of land were controlled 

 by the Service, there might be a net loss of jobs and income from enrolling a 

 marginal acre in the preservation program. Another regional economic factor to 

 be considered is the potential loss of property tax revenues. Leitch cites a 

 recent study in west central Minnesota that indicates that counties did not lose 

 (total) tax revenues, although some individual tax districts did lose total tax 

 revenues. 



49. Leitch, J. A., in collaboration with L. Falk, W.C. Nelson, L.A. Ogaard, and 

 D.F. Scott. 1981. Socioeconomic values of wetlands: concepts, research 

 methods, and annotated bibliography. North Dakota State University 

 Agriculture Experiment Station Research Report No. 81, Fargo. 42 pp. 



39 



