110 



There are three parts to this issue. First, when looked at individually, some wetlands do not provide 

 many of the often cited long list of social benefits, or if they do, they do so only at a low or modest 

 level. I am a resource economist and 1 understand the concept of cumulative impact. 1 also 

 understand the concept of marginal change. We account for both in our analysis of wetland value. 



Second, while wetland may function in such a way as to recharge groundwater, for example, if there 

 is no demand for groundwater in that area, there is no value for that function. Many parts of the 

 upper-Midwest, for example, have alkaline ground water and have responded by developing rural 

 water systems. Even if wetlands recharge ground water in these areas, there is little or no value to 

 that function since the ground water has no value. 



Social value requires both an ability and a willingness to pay for something. Having ecological or 

 hydrological function only makes something physically available, that's not enough for economic 

 value. 



Thirdly, and most important, is that knowing the value of only one option does not help to make 

 efficient choices. 1 won't argue that many wetlands have high values, but some have modest values, 

 and many have low values. Without knowing and comparing the values of wetlands to the values 

 of alternative uses of wetlands or other landscapes sacrificed to save wetlands, we can not make the 

 socially correct choices. 



