water and subject to daily tidal flooding by saltwater. 
Freshwaters bring minerals and nutrients; seawater 
circulates and mixes the nutrients. 
Because of the natural mixing, the estuarine envi- 
ronment where wetlands are located produces a 
variety of living organisms, from microscopic species 
to large numbers of fish and shellfish, birds, and 
animals. Many species, such as clams and oysters, 
spend their entire life cycles in the estuaries. Others, 
particularly very young shrimp, migrate from the 
sea to estuarine nursery areas. In these rich waters 
they grow to subadult size before returning to the 
sea to complete their life cycles. The anadromous 
species such as salmon and striped bass, pass through 
the estuaries to their spawning grounds farther up- 
stream, and the young return through the estuaries 
to the ocean. At least two thirds of the animal popu- 
lation of the ocean spends an essential portion of 
their life cycles in estuarine waters or depend on 
species that do. Waterfowl use wetlands as nesting 
and feeding areas, as do marsh-dwelling mammals. 
Wetlands perform a number of physical functions 
and chemical processes that have an intrinsic value. 
They store and slow the velocity of flood waters and 
high tides, thus protecting shorelands. Wetlands also 
absorb the energy of hurricanes and storm surges. 
Because wetlands can assimilate and retain nutrients, 
they serve as natural filters for nominal amounts of 
waterborne pollutants. Wetlands also increase the 
oxygen content of water as it passes through the eco- 
system and reduce the nutrient loads carried by 
transient waters. 
The economic value of wetlands is impossible to 
quantify, although dollar values can be assigned to 
particular edible products such as shellfish. The 
production of fish or wildlife, which are common 
property resources, accrues to society as a whole; 
the filling of a marsh for commercial purposes 
brings economic return to the owner of the 
private property, and perhaps a secondary return to 
society as well. The inability to balance long-term, 
societal benefits (fish and wildlife production, hazard 
protection, and pollution filtration) against imme- 
diate, tangible economic returns has led to the de- 
struction of wetlands and underscores the pressures 
to dredge or fill remaining wetland areas. Inflated 
property values, which continue to increase rapidly 
as available coastal land becomes scarce, is adding 
to the developmental pressures. The creation of 
“new land” by filling coastal marshes, while expen- 
sive, is a relatively cheap means of creating addi- 
tional real estate. 
Efforts to Protect Coastal Wetlands 
Federal Wetland Protection 
The initial effort toward wetland protection at the 
national level was in 1967 when legislation was in- 
troduced in the Congress to authorize the Secretary 
of the Interior to veto projects that would damage 
wetlands. Opposition to this proposal led to com- 
promise legislation (Title 16 U.S.C. 1221-1226) 
which directed the Department of the Interior to 
make a National Estuary Study, which was com- 
pleted in 1970.*’ A parallel study on estuarine pollu- 
tion was made by the Federal Waier Pollution Con- 
trol Administration in the Department of the In- 
terior at about the same time.** 
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (Expanded Review) 
A major change in the Federal role with regard 
to wetlands occurred in 1968 when the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers broadened the basis of its re- 
view of permits for dredging, filling, and the erection 
of other structures on navigable waters under Section 
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (Title 33 
U.S.C. 401 et seq.) from strictly navigational con- 
siderations to broader ecological concerns. The ex- 
87 U.S. Department of the Interior. The Nationa! Estuary 
Study. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1970. 
88 U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution 
Control Administration. The National Estuarine Pollution Study. 
Washington, D.C., Government Printing Cffice, 1969. 
panded review process, known as the “public interest 
review” was ®° 
66 
. adopted in response to a growing 
national concern for environmental values 
as they related to our Nation’s water re- 
sources and in response to related Federai 
legislation, such as the Fish and Wildlife 
Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) 
that required the consideration of some of 
these concerns in Federal decision- 
making.” 
Although the Corps considered a broad range of 
environmental factors in the public interest review, 
it restricted its permit coverage to “navigable waters” 
of the United States. This definition narrowed the 
Corps’ contro! over dredge and fill operations to 
only 15 percent of the Nation’s wetlands.®° The ex- 
panded public interest review procedure was upheld 
by the court in Zabel v. Tabb [430 F. 2d 199 (Sth 
Cir., 1970); cert. denied 401 U.S. 910 (1971)] upen 
the denial of a landfill on the grounds that it would 
damage fish and wildlife. In 1972, the Corps ex- 
panded its definition of “navigable waters” to include 
waters subject to tidal action. 
89 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, op. cit. note 84, p. 37122. 
90 P. S. Ward. “Section 404: A Controversial Program that 
Grew Like Topsy,” Journal of the Water Pollution Control 
Federation, Washington, D.C., May 1977, p. 730. 
TV—43 
