CRS-30 



Issue 3 



Should State wetland programs be required to conform to a single national 

 definition of wetlands for regulatory purposes? Some persons contend that, 

 because current State wetland programs utilize different definitions, all of 

 which are at variance with the Federal definition of wetlands, it would be ad- 

 ministratively more efficient if all were to adopt a single, consistent defin- 

 ition. Other persons respond that to force consistency among all programs, 

 by imposing a single definition, would hinder the flexibility of States. 



Pro 



The present regulatory situation where States define wetlands using dif- 

 ferent parameters leads to inconsistencies and inequities, some persons assert. 

 These definitions may be fine for individual State programs, but they will cause 

 confusion for applicants if States assume responsibilities in the Federal pro- 

 gram. It is easy to imagine an applicant's confusion when the State indicates 

 it operates two programs (a Federal and a State wetland program) with differ- 

 ent geographic boundaries on the same topic. Problems with the present approach 

 derive from some States that are only managing wetlands larger than a defined 

 size, and from soil, vegetation, and water coverage being used differently to 

 define regulated areas In various States. 



A single definition would reinforce uniform national wetland management 

 goals. States could identify additional management goals, and additional wet- 

 land areas for purposes of attaining those goals, but the Federal-State program 

 should provide a nationally-consistent baseline for wetlands management. This 

 consistency may help permit applicants to be better aware of the requirements 

 of this program. It would also improve the image of the Federal and State pro- 

 grams as consistent and coordinated efforts. 



