CRS-26 



Pro 



Proponents of transfering wetland regulatory responsibilities to the 

 States favor reduced Federal control over land use decisions that tradition- 

 ally have been the responsibility of State and local government. With program 

 transfer, they assert, such decisionmaking could be done by officials who are 

 likely to be most familiar with local needs and unique situations. A reduced 

 Federal role would eliminate problems that may exist now of the Federal govern- 

 ment second-guessing the States in areas of their decisionmaking and expertise. 

 It would also be consistent with the New Federalism concept, which seeks to 

 shift such program responsibilities away from the Federal level. 



Certain savings are likely to be achieved as well, according to these per- 

 sons. First, program transfer would eliminate problems of Federal and State 

 duplication of paperwork during review of permit applications. Problems of 

 duplication and even contradiction are most likely to occur in the case of 

 States that have strong wetland protection programs authorized by their own 

 statutes (see page 108-109, 114-116). Second, project applicants could expect 

 benefits as a result of dealing primarily with State government rather than 

 both Federal and State (see pages 115-116 for comments on this problem). These 

 benefits would be in the form of reduced time delay for permit issuance and 

 of basic administrative cost savings. Such a program would still recognize a 

 national interest and Federal involvement for the few very large projects pro- 

 posed every year that are truly of national significance. 



Con 



Other persons argue that the Federal regulatory role is necessary in order 

 to ensure consistent national application of resource management principles. 

 Many of the resources protected under the Federal program have interstate value, 

 such as migratory fish and wildlife, which would not necessarily be as well 



