16 



Moreover, the agencies have already issued guidance acknowl- 

 edging that there is and needs to be flexibility within the existing 

 regulatory framework to treat wetland permits differently depend- 

 ing on the nature of the impact they have on the aquatic resource. 



Indeed, cranberry operations do provide habitat and other advan- 

 tages which are not found in some other activities that occur in 

 wetlands, such as shopping centers. 



Mr. Studds. You didn't get the accent right, but you got the 

 answer right. Dr. Dickey, I did not give you fair warning. You are, 

 of course, the developer. Maybe I should have given you a chance 

 to think about it while everybody else was talking. As a developer, 

 why do you support the program. 



Dr. Dickey. Certainly the thing that appeals to me most is the 

 appeals process. If my permit is denied or I don't like the jurisdic- 

 tional call or an administrative penalty has been imposed on me, 

 the regulations call for an appeals process. I can have that re- 

 viewed by a higher level within the corps. 



Now, the particular process for appeals has not yet been deter- 

 mined. In fact, we are going to go through a rulemaking process to 

 outline that procedure. I would also be pleased that third parties 

 under the proposed policy would not have an appeals opportunity. 

 Thus, I needn't fear that my neighbor, who for one reason or an- 

 other doesn't want my development to go forward, would not have 

 the avenue to appeal a permit decision made by the court. 



Mr. Studds. Now who would like to be Alaskan? Just kidding. 



The gentleman from New Jersey. 



Mr. Saxton. Mr. Chairman, you used the term prior converted — 

 what was the term? 



Mr. Bridge [continuing] prior converted farmlands. 



Mr. Saxton. Is that a change from current law or what you are 

 proposing here? 



Mr. Bridge. Not a change from current policy except that it 

 would codify it. We have had agreements with the Corps of Engi- 

 neers over the last couple of years. Basically it was exempt. But 

 this codifies it further. 



Mr. Saxton. Perhaps Mr. Davison would like to comment on 

 this. In New Jersey, as I pointed out in my opening statement, we 

 have had a land use management plan which is known as the Pine- 

 lands Reserve, the master plan that was set out. That master plan, 

 I believe, has in it some definition of wetlands. There has been use 

 denied in the past of lands that were converted from wetlands to 

 farmland. 



Does the new policy definition supersede the pinelands regula- 

 tion policy or other locally enacted policy? 



Mr. Davison. Mr. Saxton, unless the State program or the Pine- 

 lands program has been recognized by the Federal Government 

 through partial assumption by the New Jersey program, or the is- 

 suance of a programmatic permit, it would not be disturbed. But 

 otherwise, the decisions made there would not suffice for purposes 

 of the Clean Water Act. 



In other words, the Federal law does not preempt State and local 

 controls, but State and local controls don't substitute for the Feder- 

 al program unless they are expressly recognized to do that by one 

 of two mechanisms. 



