Wetlands - A Losing Battle

Saving wetlands is a losing battle! First, one must askwetlands (even when no one can see signs of water,
if the environmental fervor to save wetlands isor the hole was dug with a shovel and the hole later
based on real science. Second, if that question can behas standing water in it), the owners, who are often
answered in the affirmative, the next question is,widows or senior citizens, cannot sell their land for
"can we save wetlands?" Third, if both of thosethe fair market value it would have in the real estate
questions can be answered in the affirmative, thenmarket for its highest and best use. This cost alone
one must ask, "how can we go about savinghas stolen millions and millions of dollars out of the
wetlands in a way that is cost effective, or is therepockets of hard working middle class Americans.
another tactic in the bigger picture that makesSecond, the actual cost of protecting wetlands
scientific and economic sense in our ecosystem?"through the extensive and complicated engineering
Let's face it, there has been little proof that all thethat is required is beyond comprehension for most of
laws, rules, and regulations designating and governingus. There are 10's of thousands of massive wetlands
wetlands around our nation has been effective. Theprotection projects around the country costing
Seattle Times, certainly a liberal newspaper thatmillions of dollars with negligible results.
zealously promotes wetlands and environmentalThe Port of Seattle has already spent $62,000,000
protection, shed some serious light on what a dismalto replace wetlands filled in for a third runway at
failure the federal and state and county governmentsSea-Tac. The Army Corps of Engineers scientist said,
have been in protecting our designated wetlands."the jury is still out" on the success of some of the
"Time and again, efforts to re-create nature bymitigation. Not to get picky here, but have all you
replacing wetlands fail, if the effort is made at all. Thetaxpayers signed up for this expense voluntarily?
science is relatively new and evolving, and wetlandsThe truth is, protecting wetlands with extreme
replacements are often allowed to be afterthoughtsfervor may actually be a black hole for taxpayers.
for developers. . . . Even the state's highestWe pay, government spends. What many people find
environmental officials concede the system is broken.so disturbing is that there is little proof that all our
. . . 'We are kidding ourselves; the emperor has notax dollars are doing anything to save the
clothes,' said Thomas Hruby, a senior ecologist at theenvironment.
Ecology Department. 'We are deluding ourselves,On the beautiful Northern Olympic Peninsula, and in
hoping there is a silver bullet out there that will allowSunny Sequim, Washington and it's sister city, Port
us to have our growth and not have the impacts. It'sAngeles, thousands of acres have been designated
a state of denial.'"as wetlands at a tremendous cost to private
The cost of protecting wetlands is in the billionslandowners, and with wheel barrels of tax dollars. Are
nationwide, and the scientific community still cannotwe really saving the environment? If we held court,
agree on the state of our progress, or lack thereof.and had a civil jury where the burden of proof was
This cost cannot be calculated, but it hits all of us inthe lowest standard, "by a preponderance of the
two ways.evidence," I am afraid the case for wetlands
First, when privately owned land is designated asprotection would be dismissed.