The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) estimates that of the 221 million acres of wetlands that existed in the United States at the time of colonization, only 47% (105.5 million acres) remained in 1997. Further, between the mid-1950s and the mid-1970s, an average of 458,000 acres of wetlands, an area half of the size of Rhode Island, were lost per year. This incredible rate of loss was reduced somewhat between the mid-1970s and mid-1980s and an area equal to only a quarter of the size of Rhode Island (290,000 acres) was destroyed yearly. Significant reductions in wetland losses were reported between 1986 and 1997 with the yearly loss estimated at 58,500 acres. As encouraging as the reduction has been, significant new threats have appeared as a result of recent court decisions and the yearly loss totals have risen dramatically since 1997. Please refer to A Caveat to Success - New Perils for Wetlands for an extended discussion on this subject.

Although it might be more satisfying to blame the loss of wetlands on developers, the reality is that the greatest historical losses have been from agriculture and are more often than not related to a project undertaken by the federal government. For example, agricultural conversion represented 87% of the wetlands lost between 1954 and 1974 while urban development and commercial activities accounted for only 13%. However, more recent trends have shown a reduction in the agricultural conversion and a disturbing increase in the loss of wetlands to development activities with such activities accounting for 46% of the losses between 1974 and 1983.

If wetlands are so obviously valuable, one must question why they are being destroyed at such a prodigious rate? In part, the answer lies in the reality that 74% of the wetlands of the continental United States are in private ownership and the owner of the wetlands realizes little of their environmental value as the water quality and water control benefits are largely realized only by people who are downstream. To them, it is an unfarmable, unbuildable “swamp” that until it is converted “into something useful”, has little economic value. In turn, wetlands tend to be among the least expensive property and as such are often perfect pickings for large scale development where the cost of filling them is easily offset by the lower property cost. The “Meadowlands” in New Jersey and Kennedy Airport in New York are prime examples of the economic viability associated with the construction of large projects undertaken directly in wetlands.

Access to water is also a key consideration for business, residential and industrial uses alike. The aesthetics of “waterfront” properties can be invaluable to the marketing of a residential project or business park but the resultant pollution caused by runoff can be a disaster for nearby wetlands. Likewise, while many industries need water, the discharges and runoff that all too frequently result can seriously impact the health of wetlands and the life forms that inhabit them.

The Role of Government in Wetland Reduction

If one were to confine their research to information provided by the various government agencies that are involved in wetland protection, they would miss the reality that it is the government itself that is the single largest “developer” of projects that effect them. In fact, although Corps literature describes wetland loses to agricultural as the leading cause of wetland reduction there is no mention that those loses have frequently been the result of Corps projects.

The Army Corps of Engineers is one of the least understood agencies in the federal government. They are also one of the most powerful. Their impact on the environment and their political influence is so enormous that it requires a separate section to detail their complicity. Power Politics and the Corps details the Corps role in wetland destruction and may provide some insight into the very strange workings of Washington. Anybody that views the Corps as a group of people with pocket protectors and slide rulers should read this section, it is very enlightening and equally as disturbing.

Heading the list are those government initiatives related to the development and control of surface water resources. These may include the construction of hydroelectric facilities, water supply or flood control projects to name but a few. These actions often involve the alteration of existing water courses and it is the diversion of water that represents one of the biggest threats to wetlands. In the East, we tend to think of diversion projects in terms of flood control or power generation but the diversion of water for crop irrigation is by far the most common. In fact, nearly 85% of all the water used in the U.S. is for irrigation, much of which is available directly as a result of projects undertaken by the Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation.

The altering of water courses has a wide range of impacts. Not only might existing wetlands be inundated, but downstream flows are often dramatically changed resulting in a loss of wetlands and the elimination of the plant and animal communities which were dependent on them. Often not considered are the induced or secondary impacts, such as the development, that occur as a result of water projects. For example, the growth in California is intrinsically linked to the massive water projects of the 1930s, not only in terms of the population expansion but in terms of agriculture production as well. Today, millions of acres of crop land are irrigated with water from federally funded water diversion projects.

The development of the transportation networks, especially road systems, is another leading cause of wetland loss. Not only does the actual construction of roads often divert water flows and require the filling of wetlands but such projects often have secondary impacts that are far more damaging than the project itself. Among those impacts are the isolation of wetlands from adjoining lands that completed the local ecosystem and the contamination caused by runoff. Oil products, rubber and salt are just a few of the pollutants that are common to normal road usage and which often find their way to the wetlands that remain.

In addition, new road construction often alters land use patterns and induces growth in a manner that can directly impact wetlands. New industrial, commercial and residential construction is a common product of increased access and often results in the destruction of wetlands far outside the immediate project area. Although the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that agencies involved in the construction of infrastructure projects consider all secondary impacts, the reality is that those agencies have figured out a variety of tactics to avoid doing so. Primary among them is the practice of segmentation (the breaking of large projects into smaller ones to avoid the need to deal with the totality of the impacts on a region) and the denial by government agencies that induced growth is a reality. By refusing to recognize that the phenomenon of induced growth exists, the agencies are freed from studying the impacts of that growth when conducting the mandated environmental reviews of proposed projects. After all, nobody can blame you for not studying something that isn’t there can they?

Our government not only plays an active role in destroying wetlands but also plays a key role in coming to the rescue when the havoc to which they have been a party produces untenable results. Federally subsidized flood insurance and disaster relief programs are a huge cost borne by all taxpayers and are often used to counteract damage that would have been avoided or mitigated had we not eliminated the natural protection offered by wetlands. To make matters worse, the government has historically responded to increased flooding by the construction of even more water diversion projects which obviously impacted even more wetlands. Fortunately, you only have to hit some people over the head with a stick so many times before they get the idea and there is a growing belief at the federal level that water containment (dams) and diversion projects are not the best way to control flooding.

*Please see section on The Impact of Regulation for a continued discussion on this subject.