The battle over wetlands regulation stretches from the halls of Congress to the pelican-populated marshes near Delacroix. It pits landowners who want to develop their property against fisheries biologists trying to stem the destruction of habitat.

Day Three: Tuesday, March 26, 1996 Sinking Treasure Conflicting interests squeeze marshes Life on the sea: Early warning went unheeded Human intervention breaks ancient rhythm Everglades' surrender is slow, sad

Conflicting interests squeeze marshes

By Mark Schleifstein,
Staff writer

From the creation of the first farms and settlements to construction of the latest subdivisions and shopping malls, for centuries America’s wetlands and marshes have been caught between the needs of society and the rights of individual property owners.
  Landowners and developers found that their interests generally matched those of society as the nation was founded and expanded. There was little opposition, for instance, when New Orleans settlers decided that raising levees was better than enduring floods and that draining swamps was better than fighting mosquitoes and yellow fever.
  But increased awareness of the value of the marshlands in protecting communities from hurricane storm surges and nurturing fish and wildlife has pushed the pendulum toward conservation.
  After almost two centuries of encouraging the draining and filling of swamps to expand agricultural and urban development, in the 1970s the U.S. government began restricting actions that might damage or reduce wetlands.
  By the time former President Bush declared ‘‘no net loss of wetlands’’ in 1989, restrictions on wetland use had become controversial as they butted up against the plans of some private land owners and major developers.
  The latest battles are being waged in two areas: the attempt by Congress to rewrite the 1972 Clean Water Act with new definitions and regulations for wetlands, and the debate over managing vast expanses of marshes with levees and gates to attract waterfowl and other wildlife for hunters.
  The debates are crucial to the Gulf of Mexico, where vast losses of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands threaten to eliminate the nursery grounds for 98 percent of the region’s commercially important fish. The continued collapse of the wetlands, experts say, will wipe out the fishing grounds and destroy much of the coastline.
  Here is a look at the issues:

Regulation: Citing stories of overzealous bureaucrats protecting questionable wetlands by blocking developments and depriving private property owners of the use of their land, Congress last year considered measures to redefine wetlands and compensate citizens for property values diminished by regulations. The efforts were stalled by the crush of the budget debate and a backlash from constituents who sided with environmentalists.
  Much of the controversy involves seasonal wetlands, which are saturated only at certain times of the year. While those wetlands often are in upland areas, away from the coasts, they also are often the beginning of a river’s watershed and provide storage for flood waters as well as habitat for migrating birds and other wildlife.
  Critics say the system is too liberal in applying the wetland label to areas of standing water and does not take into consideration that some marshlands are more valuable than others and they should be protected at different levels.
  Environmentalists argue that adopting a political definition of wetlands, rather than a scientific definition based on how the wetlands fit into a particular watershed or how they are used by wildlife, would greatly reduce the amount of wetlands protected and the protection they provide for wildlife and the public.

Marsh management: A less-publicized but no less important issue being debated along the Gulf Coast is ‘‘marsh management,’’ the practice of protecting a marsh or controlling its plant growth to attract a specific type of wildlife.
  Such projects often pit conservation and wildlife interests against each other. Wildlife preserve officials and private land managers want to regulate water inside a marsh management area to maximize the kinds of marsh grasses that entice ducks. Fisheries officials want to regulate the water levels to maximize the ability of fish to find protection during their growing stages, and to move in and out of the marsh area at will. The two management schemes are seldom compatible.
  Researchers say the growth of marsh management during the past 40 years, and the expected use of similar projects during the next 20 years, will result in a third of Louisiana’s wetlands being partially cut off to fish. That greatly reduces the stocks available to Gulf fishers.
  The first marsh management projects consisted largely of levees built around a plot of land, with a limited number of passageways, usually an underwater wooden dam called a weir. The idea was to control the amount of salt water getting into the marsh and fresh water getting out, because salt water eventually kills the freshwater marsh vegetation. Sometimes pumps helped owners remove excess water from the impoundments.
  But the combination of levees and weirs has been shown to keep fish and shrimp inside the marsh much longer than normal, and limit the number that can get into the managed areas.
  Bill Herke, a retired fisheries scientist and an expert on the relationship between fish and marshes, conducted a two-year study of two similar stretches of wetlands surrounded by levees.
  Herke found that three times more fish passed in and out of enclosed areas of marsh where openings in the levees did not have weirs than in those marshes that allowed movement of fish only over weirs.
  Federal and state officials now require new weirs in marsh management areas to have a vertical slot that allows fish to pass more easily. But Herke and other researchers say marsh management projects still dramatically reduce fish habitats.
  More than 600,000 acres of marsh in Louisiana are under some form of management, often including levees and fixed or adjustable weirs. Another 600,000 acres of wetlands could be placed under some form of marsh management during the next 20 years, officials estimate.