After Ben File, a Bond County farmer for 50 years, prepared his land for last spring's corn planting, the local soil conservationist from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service told Bond that he was farming on 20 acres of converted wetlands. The only wet spot that File could find on his 140 acres was an area dampened by water running from a 75-year-old drainage tile. Since there was no water standing and there were no water-loving plants in the area, he asked the soil conservationist to visit his farm and reconsider the wetland designation.

The local conservationist and a soil scientist probed for four hours, then flagged three areas as wetlands. They told File to redisc them or he would have to repay federal money that he had received. File's appeal to the Soil Conservation Service area conservationist was denied. Finally, with testimony of the executive director of the Bond County Agricultural Conservation and Stabilization Service, the area conservationists agreed to reverse their decision if File would keep one-tenth of an acre as wetlands. "I agreed to this even though it is not wetland," the frustrated File says.

Preserving wetlands is a national issue, and defining them is part of the issue. Preserving wetlands for their values in ecology, hydrology and pollution control pits fanners against environmentalists and land developers against conservationists in a classic feud over short- and long-term costs and benefits.

Illinois' diverse assemblage of wetlands represents most of the nation's southern and northern wetland types. Although wetlands now compose only 2.6 percent of Illinois, they serve as home to 40 percent of Illinois' threatened and endangered species. Illinois' wetlands are concentrated along the major river systems, in the northeast comer and in the southern third of the state.

At the time of statehood, Illinois was covered by an estimated 8.2 million acres of wetlands. Since then 89 percent have been lost to various forms of development. About 87 percent of those original wetlands were converted to agriculture, according to the Illinois Department of Conservation. Within the major agricultural areas of the state, virtually all wetlands have been lost. For example, in Champaign County before 1870 the vast majority of the landscape would have been categorized as wetlands, but 95 percent has been drained and covered by row-crop agriculture.

Preservation of wetlands went to the top of the national agenda with the election of President Bush and then tumbled with proposed new federal wetlands definitions. In the summer of 1987, the National Wetlands Policy Forum, a bipartisan group convened by the Conservation Foundation, proposed the "no overall net loss" policy in wetland protection that President Bush adopted in his 1988 presidential campaign. Bush said then, "My position on wetlands is straightforward: all wetlands, no matter how small, should be protected."

Bush's efforts to put more enforcement muscle into wetlands protection set in motion a well-organized lobbying campaign of development and farming interests against what they called "overzealous and restrictive" federal wetland programs. In August, Bush backed away from his earlier promise and announced a proposal he claimed "would balance both the objective of protection, restoration and creation of wetlands and the need for development."

The president's new proposal includes: funding fully the 1990 Farm Bill's Wetlands Reserve Program, which authorizes the purchase of one million acres of wetlands; initiating wetland restoration programs on federal lands; and expanding wetlands research. William K. Reilly, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), says federal spending for research, enforcement and purchase of wetlands has increased from $295 million in fiscal year 1989 to $709 million in the 1992 budget. The Interior Department has purchased 450,000 acres of critical wetlands habitat. However, Reilly pointed out that three-quarters of remaining wetlands are privately owned, requiring a coordinated wetlands policy.

A second part of the Bush proposal would abandon the "avoid first" mandate contained in current regulations which force a developer to prove that wetlands destruction cannot be avoided. Instead it permits more extensive "mitigation banking" which requires landowners to restore lost wetlands or create new ones in exchange for destroying existing sites.

The most controversial part of the Bush proposal is the revision of the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Wetlands" issued in January 1989 by the U.S. EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Soil Conservation Service. Marvin Hubbell, wetland program administrator for the Illinois Department of Conservation, says the proposed revisions would change the indicators used to

10/January 1992/Illinois Issues

determine whether an area is a wetland.

Under the 1989 manual, says Hubbell, the wetlands definition used by the four federal agencies is essentially the same. It requires that a wetland meet three criteria: 1) hydric soil (soil types like peats and mucks that develop when water excludes oxygen); 2) wetland hydrology (water has to be at or near the surface); and 3) water plants.

Wetlands in Congress Federal wetlands regulations have emerged as a key environmental issue in the 102nd Congress. HR 1330, introduced by Rep. James A. "Jimmy" Hayes (D-La.) with more than 120 sponsors, would establish multiple classifications for wetlands. The intent is to protect wetlands in proportion to the importance of their ecological values. The bill would also assure adequate compensation for owners of wetlands precluded from development. S 2018, introduced by Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), would give authority to the U.S. Soil Conservation Service to make all technical determinations of wetlands on agricultural lands. Developers and farmers see the overlapping authority of four federal agencies as costly and intrusive to private land use decisions. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits to fill wetlands. All applications for permits are reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The "Swampbuster" provision in the 1985 Farm Bill gives wetlands regulatory authority to the U.S. Soil Conservation Services, and it makes ineligible for federal program money any farmer growing a crop on wetlands converted after 1985. Some projects take years of hearings, public comment and legal wrangling to get required permits. In Delaware, the cost of a 46-mile, $500 million road project increased $4 million because wetlands projections increased from 88 to 300 acres. Developers complain that the current law treats all wetlands equally and does not recognize the varying degrees of wetland values. Hence, the "no net loss goal" for wetlands remains elusive as pressures mount in Congress. Wen Huang

Most people think of wetlands as swamps or bogs or land with standing water nearly all year long, but Hubbell says that depressions where rain accumulates on a seasonal basis are also wetlands. Since many wetlands dry up in dry seasons, the field staff from the federal agencies have to rely on indicators as indirect evidence of long-time presence of water.

The proposed revisions would change requirements for meeting two of the three criteria and make it harder to declare land as a wetland. The proposed changes to the 1989 manual would designate as wetlands those lands having 15 consecutive days of inundation during a growing season or 21 days in which the soil is saturated with water up to the surface. The current delineation criterion used in the 1989 manual is seven consecutive days of water within 18 inches of the land surface during the growing season. The Bush administration revisions would also redefine the growing season as shorter and reduce the variety of plants that qualify an area as a wetland. According to Reilly, the revisions to the manual provide greater predictability and certainty and set out new criteria which should compel more understanding and support for regulatory decisions.

Immediately after the proposed manual revisions were announced, a group of government wetlands experts launched a nationwide field test. They concluded in their report that the proposal is unworkable, scientifically unsound and technically deficient. The test results indicate that the changes would open to use from 30 to 80 percent of the acres of "prairie potholes" (temporary ponds formed by depressions) on the northern Great Plains and in the Midwest that serve as resting points for migrating ducks and geese.

Illinois was the first state to study how much of its wetlands would be affected by the new definitions, says Hubbell. An inventory by the Illinois Department of Conservation and other state agencies found that from 78 to 86 percent of Illinois wetlands (716,000 to 789,000 acres) would fail the proposed new criteria. Those acres, mainly in southern Illinois, would become "dry" wetland areas with standing water for only brief periods during the year, yet they play vital roles in filtering chemicals and reducing floods.

In 1989 Illinois became the first state to legislatively adopt a "no net loss" policy. The "Interagency Wetland Policy Act of 1989" (PA 86-157) directs state agencies to avoid reducing wetlands sizes and destroying wetlands functional values. The act says that if no feasible alternative exists and such adverse impacts are unavoidable, the agency must compensate for wetlands loss by creating new wetlands or acquiring existing ones.

After the apparent flip flop by Bush, some Illinois lawmakers are pushing for adoption of strong state wetlands protection programs. "The feds have gone too far and that makes it more important for us to establish stringent measures before wetlands are destroyed," says Barbara Flynn Currie (D-26, Chicago), who introduced six wetlands protection bills. The three key bills awaiting action are:

• House Bill 2554, would require a permit from the Illinois Department of Conservation for dredging, filling or otherwise adversely affecting wetland. Individuals would have to pay compensation for any wetlands loss. Money received as compensation and fees for permit applications plus any civil or criminal penalties would be deposited into a wetlands compensation fund used for planning and managing wetlands.

• House Bill 2426 would create a fund combining donations, appropriations from the Build Illinois Purposes Fund and fees from developers. Income earned by the fund would be used to pay the cost of administering a wetlands preservation program, including acquisition, restoration and creation of wetlands.

• House Bill 2428 would amend the Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act. It would require state agencies and local governments to consult with the Illinois Department of Conservation before taking any action that might affect Illinois nature preserves and natural areas listed in the Illinois inventory.

These bills have the support of the Illinois Environmental Council. "President Bush's renege on his earlier campaign pledge points to a need to compensate for and simplify the process. What House Bill 2554 does would give Illinois a program actually designed to protect wetlands," says Virginia Scott, council executive director. In the time of a state budget crunch,

January l992/Illinois Issues/11

Scott says HB 2426 would establish a new source of revenue for wetlands protection. Scott calls HB 2428 a prevention program that extends the current protections for endangered species.

Wetlands regulation frustrates File and other farmers. "I have seen few issues in recent years that have so confused and in many cases angered our members as the wetland issues," says John White, president of the Illinois Farm Bureau. White complains that the current definition of wetlands used by state and federal agencies has led to regulation of areas with highly marginal wetland values.

Becky Doyle, director of the Illinois Department of Agriculture, defends farming practices and farmers: "The wetlands issue hit our industry at a time when every individual was fighting for their livelihood and heritage." Doyle says she is willing to help environmentalists with wetlands in exchange for their backing on farmland preservation issues.

Whatever the definitions, the Illinois Farm Bureau contends that current wetland regulations ignore property rights. White says, "When some small patches of wet spots have been identified in the midst of acres of farmland, regardless of their value, under the current regulations, the identified wetland sites will halt farming activities and threaten the existence of another natural resource, crops." White says that farmers no longer can use their land in the manner that they deem best for their farming operation: "Outsiders want to take with no compensation that which their families for generations have struggled to build and pay for. ... Often, the ink is barely dry on one set of regulations before changes are proposed. Farmers feel their government has lost common sense."

The Farm Bureau touts the most recent Bush proposal as a "reasonable" step towards alleviating the overburdening federal regulations on farm property, and it advocates wetlands protection through education, research and incentives. The bureau opposes all of Currie's bills. Instead, it supports Senate Bill 690, introduced by Sen. Jerome J. Joyce (D-43, Bradley), which would create a Wetland Protection Program administered by the Illinois Department of Agriculture to seek voluntary cooperation of landowners in wetland preservation. One environmentalist calls SB 690 "tantamount to taking the remaining hens to the fox den and asking the fox to protect them."

The Illinois Environmental Council's Scott counters the Farm Bureau on private property rights, citing the Illinois Constitution which says that it is the "duty of each person to provide and maintain a healthful environment for the benefit of this and future generations" and "each person has the right to a healthful environment." Scott says the rights of farmers to do whatever pleases them with their property has limits, and she urges farmers to join hands in protecting the remaining wetlands.

Hubbell of the Illinois Department of Conservation emphasizes that clarifying wetlands policy should not be a finger-pointing process: Wetland protection programs can't ignore agriculture. Hubbell suggests that application of "no net loss" policy be flexible and accompanied by some form of compensation. He suggests some form of tax incentives for landowners who preserve wetlands. Commending the concept of a state cost-share program whereby the state pays part of the cost for farmers who reduce soil erosion, Hubbell suggests a parallel for wetland protection programs. He points out also that Illinois farmland assessment, which is based on soil productivity, will cut property taxes for landowners who have wetlands on their farms. Hubbell cautions: "However, if substantial payments are made to individuals, adequate regulations should also be used to provide long-term protection for the public investment."

The Illinois Senate Agriculture and Conservation Committee and House Municipal and Conservation Law Subcommittee on Wetlands held a series of statewide hearings in September and October. "We should proceed as cautiously as possible and wait to see what the feds do," says Sen. William O'Daniel (D-54, Mount Vernon), chairman of the agriculture committee. O'Daniel intends to put the current six wetlands bills into one: "If there is the necessity for action in the spring session, we will try to sit down with the participation of all interest groups and work out a bill that all sectors of society could live with."

Wetlands preservation is not only a farm issue, and the Bush proposal also has implications for a planned third Chicago-area airport. All proposed sites have wetland areas, with the Lake Calumet site favored by Mayor Richard M. Daley having the most. "If the proposal is adopted, it will be much easier to get federal approval of the Lake Calumet site," says Rep. Clem Balanoff (D-35, Chicago), who is leading the battle against location of the airport in Lake Calumet. According to Balanoff, the Lake Calumet site covers almost 3,000 acres of wetlands and open water. A study recently released by Chicago city officials proposed 22 projects that would offset the environmental damage caused by locating the airport on the Lake Calumet site. Balanoff and other environmentalists are skeptical about the findings. He says, "It is impossible to provide mitigation for an area of this size."

Scott, executive director of the Illinois Environmental Council, agrees. Historically, says Scott, Chicago was mostly wetlands (marsh or swamp to the pioneer settlers) from Lake Michigan to the present location of Michigan Avenue. Rapid urban development eliminated most of them. This historic loss with the current annual conversion of 4,000 to 6,000 acres of wetlands in Illinois has its price. For example, 80 percent of the flooding in DuPage County occurs on converted wetlands, and it costs DuPage County $100 million to $200 million to address flooding problems along Salt Creek.

Wetlands protection has definitely come a long way as an issue. "No longer is it only the grizzled old duck hunter that enjoys the beauty and the splendor of the marsh," says Brent Manning, director of the Illinois Department of Conservation. People nationwide are fast awakening to the issue, including farmers like George Johnson, a longtime Farm Bureau member in Winnebago County in northern Illinois. Johnson, who has legally tile-drained and filled the wetlands on his farm, now recognizes that many a wetland is "one-of-a-kind" on the planet:

"Destroy it and nothing like it will ever be again. Therefore, it is worthwhile that we deliberate long and hard over that which can be destroyed only once," he says.

Wen Huang is a graduate of the Public Affairs Reporting Program at Sangamon State University. He was Illinois Issues intern during the 1991 spring legislation session.

12/January 1992/Illinois Issues