After reading Eric's how long can it go...

Ed L.

Ed L.

Well-known member
Supporter
I realize Eric was talking about droughts which we are in and have been in for several years now but draining of wetlands is just as bad. I don't know if anyone follows Fowlweather on facebook but I listened to a podcast the other night that made me sit up. Its long but worth a listen. It talks about the government wanting to change the Wetlands policy we as hunters have paid for thru purchasing duck stamps. This would affect 1.7 million acres of wetlands habitat. Here is a link to read about it. This link talks about a request for information but the podcast explains that there are already changes spelled out about what the The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is reviewing and considering rolling back the 2024 "drain tile setback rule" that protects critical Prairie Pothole wetlands.

I know in my area farmers are tiling any fields that drain in creeks, man made ditches and anything that flows to the Mississippi river. I know of several wetlands in counties around me that no longer exist. Curious if others have input on the subject?

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.federalregister.gov www.federalregister.gov
 
I think I saw a post on the forum already, but yes this is a real issue. I am assuming you're referring to this podcast: Fowlweather Podcast: Special Alert - Are the Ducks Done For? Mike, Mike, and Scott and brilliant waterfowl minds and we should all do our best to listen to them as much as we can. When those guys tell you to shut up and listen up, do it.

This is definitely one that should set off alarm bells. And you and everyone on this forum should be leaving a comment that says "we like the rules, they work just fine as they are, we already paid money to protect those lands, no reason to jeopardize our investment". Right now they are asking for feedback, and we should provide it.

As far as farmers and wetlands, there is a lot of info out there. Wetlands protections vary quite a bit depending on which state you live in. Here in PA, the commonwealth protects everything that meets a certain definition. In NJ, the state protects wetlands in a slightly different way. Delaware has historically never had state level wetlands regulations, but has just passed new laws within the last month or so. I could go on state by state... but that's boring for most folks. Federally, most of the prairie pothole wetlands that this proposed change would effect lost their protections in the most recent Supreme court case ruling on interpretations of the Clean Water Act (which regulates what can and cannot be done to navigable waterways in the US). Where a navigable waterway begins and ends is a bit gray and up for interpretation. It used to be a "significant nexus," which essentially meant that if a wetland provided hydrology (even if underground) to a navigable waterway, it fell under federal protection. Most of these prairie pothole wetlands were protected through this line of thought - you won't have navigable waters if the headwaters are dry. However, the new ruling (Sackett vs. EPA) found that wetlands are only under federal jurisdiction is there is a surface water connection. And to your first point, during this drought, there might not be a surface connection. And that's where it gets gray again - wetland have natural wet and dry cycles. Depending on the type of wetland, these cycles vary in length. Now, wetlands are relying on what state level protections they have (see the previous note about Delaware's recent decision to introduce state level wetlands regulations).

All said, farming generally receives significant exceptions from the above. We need food security within the nation, so farmers have special rules. Generally, these are laid out in the Food Security Act of 1985. Violations of the Food Security Act generally lead to ineligibility determinations for federal agricultural aid programs by the Farm Service Agency (like Farm Bill conservation technical and financial assistance). However, these only apply to wetlands that were altered to bring row crops into production after 1985 - known as swamp-busting. Anything that was drained before 1985 and has been kept in production is generally grandfathered in and thereby legal.

I recently had a farmer tell me: I'm a farmer, and inherently I want to drain wetlands. That's not true of all farmers, but there is a certain mindset to taming the land. It's unfortunate, but there are efforts to reverse the effects agriculture has had on the land. The NRCS does a good job of this - check out USDAs Wetland Reserve Easement Program. But there are other programs as well that don't rely on easements, like CRP, CREP, EQIP... etc. The only issue being that these are voluntary programs, and, like we're seeing, are still vulnerable to adjoining hydrologic stealing.

Anyways, there's a little bit of background for you. I could go one for pages, wetlands, wetland science, and policy are an interesting subject with lots of nuance.
 
Even as a former regulator, someone who still works in wetland restoration and who is a little left of center, I find federal involvement with regulating truly isolated wetlands under the clean water act a troubling issue. I think it was a stretch to begin with. As a hunter, fisherman, conservationist and someone who likes clean water, I also find the lack of some sort of regulation just as troubling.
I do believe states do have the authority under their common law, land use, flood plain protection, and public health, & welfare responsibilities / duties, to regulate wetland impacts. But many states have very limited wetlands protection rules.
And farmer are stuck in the middle, with ever increasing costs and already low profit margins. They need to till every acre they can. But they also need groundwater and surface water recharge for irrigation. So it’s a tough balancing act for them.
All That said, the federal govt should not be rolling back protections for wetlands we already paid to protect. It just doesn’t make sense.
Just like most issues in this country that we need to solve, we need compromise and well thought laws, rules and programs that work, with less bureaucracy. Which means for the time being, we won’t.
 
Ben L said:
. We need food security within the nation, so farmers have special rules.
Click to expand...
I grew up farming and honestly this is one of the myths about what is grown. A high percentage of crops are not necessarily for food security as it goes to biofuels, bio-plastics, and other products that are not consumed. Farming is one of the heaviest subsidized industries as well and would flounder in its current form without the governments money. So we don't have to farm every tillable acre for food security, its only security for the farmer because the cost of running a farm has drastically risen while the return on investment has been flat, shoot the prices of beans, corn, and wheat have been around the same for decades.

I'm very aware of the detriment that farmers do (like I said I come from farming so not necessarily against them) because I live near the dismal swamp. My dad would talk about how they would have consistent and predictable rain until they logged the swamp and turned it into farm land. We used to help tend that land and there was one block left of trees in the middle and it would hold water and keep the "down river" fields with moisture when it got drier. Well the landowner needed more land to farm so he logged it, well there went the water hold and the entire farm suffered so he gained little from it.

And then roundup has destroyed a ton as well. My dad would leave buffers around the ditches and would mow them or just let it grow throughout the year. Well once he died and my uncle farmed the land he would spray everything and plant right up to the ditch (as well as majority of the other farmers) and now erosion is a problem, bridges wash out, ditches are filling in, and wildlife has plummeted like quail.

As much as I love farming and farmers, the practices used have little concern for the environment and repercussions caused by their actions and how it affects so many others.
 
Those vegetative buffers and wetlands also capture fertilizer runoff, a lot which now ends up causing eutrophication in rivers, lakes and estuaries. There are a lot of programs across the nation to help farmers re-adapt vegetative buffers and no-till to reduce fertilizer and sediment runoff. And these BMPs work.
And programs to help farmers be better at fertilizer application. Every pound of fertilizer washed downstream is wasted $$$.
 
This is what I like about Duckboats. Intelligent conversation that helps understand a multi faceted issue. I thought the Delaware Fresh water wetlands bill was also to stop AI datacenter development in the state.
 
First off, I'm sorry I missed the conversation that has already occurred here. I'll be going back through the pages to catch up. With that said. Thank you for the comments on this as its a good education for someone like myself that isn't close or knowledgeable about either the farming aspect or anything more than the political aspect other than hearing local Ducks Unlimited speeches or what is discussed at the boat ramp. Personally, like you all that have buying duck stamps, in my case since 1972, I will hope they do not roll back the wetland initiative.
 
I commented on the USF&WS page. I encourage everyone to comment as well. It only takes a minute to fill out the form and a simple comment only takes a few more minutes of your time. If you think of yourself as duck hunter and sportsman and don't comment you might want to rethink it.

BTW, there are approximately one million duck hunters and about ten thousand comments. That tells me approximately 99% of duck hunters haven't commented. I am pretty certain 100% will not be happy with empty skies.

 
Last edited:
Steven Alexander said:
I oppose anything the current US government gets involved in (D or R). They could F*** up a wet dream.
Click to expand...
In that vein, I'd like to play a little Devil's Advocate here, mainly because I suspect many of you know a lot more than I do about this topic and by poking a bit may learn more that would help me.

When I saw this posted initially, my instinct was to go comment as encouraged - I certainly want to see wetlands protected as much as reasonably possible. But, perhaps similar to Steven, I've seen so much bureaucratic overreach over the years that I held off until I could study it a little and better understand the issue. I've now done some reading and listened to a couple of DU's podcasts on the subject (with one of their respected scientists).

I'm fully on board with the basic tenets of the easement program and protecting the prairie potholes, but I'm questioning both the crisis DU is making this out to be and the potential for Fish and Wildlife overreach (as we've seen from many, many other federal agencies).

First and foremost, though DU is hammering on the decades-long funding of the habitat protection easements program and its permanence promise to hunters and conservationists, the rule on which public comment is invited is new - put in place by USFWS in 2024 based on their interpretation of the easements and laws that apply. Right off the bat, I applaud the general concept of a government agency seeking public comment on such rules within a few years of implementation to seek and evaluate unintended consequences as well as measure whether it achieved its goals. This doesn't happen enough, in my opinion, so the opportunity seems a good thing rather than a threatening thing.

Second, I have to admit that I have a little heartburn about the interpretation and rule, as I understand it. I understand fully selling an easement on a piece of property and promising not to drain, level, burn, etc. as part of the bargain. But for USFWS to interpret that their legal rights for each easement they've purchased extend beyond the property under easement to neighboring tracts seems a reach.

A hypothetical might clarify my question/concern, and perhaps one of you can help alleviate it. Let's say you and I each own 1,000 acre tracts of land immediately adjoining one another. Our mutual property line is essentially just to one side of a wetland area of several hundred acres that is within my boundaries. I sell one of these easements to USFWS for the wetland area of my property plus some buffer around it and to the property line. As I understand it, the 2024 interpretation and ruling allows USFWS to independently determine a buffer even beyond the easement boundaries in which said draining/burning/leveling activity cannot occur - effectively encumbering some portion of your property near that easement (if their calculations indicate an impact). I'd have a problem with that. I'd sinilarly have a problem if they applied said interpretation to any of the remaining portion of my property (on which I did not sell an easement). It seems to me that restricting activity beyond the lines of the easement acquired is tantamount to taking without compensation.

I also understand the 2024 ruling essentially applies a zero-loss approach in making calculation of necessary buffers. Any time I hear or see zero-tolerance type language my guard goes up, as it prevents rational discussion of outliers and changing conditions/situations. I'd probably feel better if it took an approach that minimized impact or had some feasibility/reasonableness component.

Again, I'm not arguing the value of protecting the potholes and wetlands - but it seems to me the problem may be that we didn't buy big enough easements to actually protect them. DU suggests some of this is due to technological improvements in drain tiles - if so, it seems to me the effort should be to raise money to acquire additional buffer easements rather than to find rights beyond what were previously purchased.

How would you educate me on the above so that I might look at it differently?

As a side note, another repeated focus for DU is the permanent nature of the easements - in perpetuity. I get the idea, but in a world in which the climate changes (no interest in an argument over cause, direction, etc.), this, too, seems a bit like the wrong thing on which to be focused. Where we'll need to grow food will shift over time, and where ducks and other critters will need habitat will also shift over time, right?
 
Last edited:
If any argument, disagreement or issue were simply black or white I would agree with Henry's position. My family resides in the Red River Valley and our location serves as a perfect example of how farming practices affect us all, both negatively and for the positive. Yes, our nation is the bread basket of the world. But how much of our agricultural production is actually used to feed the planet? Much of our agricultural production is aimed towards biofuels. Is this the highest and best use of our land? As DU has pointed out, drain tile technology has vastly improved but at what cost? The cost is not only to wildfowl but also the human cost. Currently Fargo/Moorhead is building a huge diversion project that is expected to cost over 3.2 billion dollars to protect against overland flooding. I'm not saying that drain tile causes flooding, but it certainly exasperated it. Who do you suppose pays for the diversion. The answer of course is everyone from the tax payer to the wildlife that agriculture displaced. It seems to me that on one hand the government seeks to take land out of production ie CRP, while at the same time seeking to maximize other land based production. To expound on Steven Alexander's comment, I truly don't think that the right hand of government knows what the left hand is doing.
Water rights will be the biggest issue in the years to come. As a society we need to come to terms with just how important water is and were it should be allocated. Surface water is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to water issues. Our aquifers are in serious danger but I suspect that with all the AI Data Centers popping up all over the place that wetlands will once again take a back seat to "prosperity".
RM

"It takes 1,000 tons of water to produce 1 ton of grain. As water becomes scarce and countries are forced to divert irrigation water to cities and industry, they will import more grain. As they do so, water scarcity will be transmitted across national borders via the grain trade. Aquifer depletion is a largely invisible threat, but that does not make it any less real." ~ Lester R. Brown
 
Last edited:
Here's a Washington Post Op Ed from the position of a farmer who wants to be able to plow close to, install drain tiles next to, and dig drainage channels through prairie pot hole wetlands. My take--previous owners of the property SOLD those wetland easements to the public. Years later, a new owner doesn't like the restrictions from that sale. But legally, this is no different than if I bought a property that had a power line or road ROW through it and then objected to the town or the power company building it. My purchase price was reduced by the value "lost" to the easement. I should not be able to reclaim that value now without buying it back--from a willing seller. It also sounds like this particular farmer's property is mostly wetlands. I get why that is difficult to work around. But the buyer knew that when he bought it. (This may be behind a paywall. If so, I'll see if I can find a version I can share.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ts-are-putting-prairie-potholes-over-farmers/
 
I think there are lots of great reasons to have conversations about how to address water quality and quantity issues, and perhaps even reasons to talk about the overall cost benefit of drain tiles and when/where they should be used, if at all.

I'm just not sure that extending a wildlife agency's (or any federal or state agency's) jurisdiction beyond its acquired easement boundaries without specific legislative direction is the way to solve such problems. As Richard comments, we end up with federal agencies in turf battles and not much getting accomplished. Or as seems to be the case here, that USFWS is trying to avoid some lawsuits it may not win.
 
Jeff Reardon said:
Here's a Washington Post Op Ed from the position of a farmer who wants to be able to plow close to, install drain tiles next to, and dig drainage channels through prairie pot hole wetlands. My take--previous owners of the property SOLD those wetland easements to the public. Years later, a new owner doesn't like the restrictions from that sale. But legally, this is no different than if I bought a property that had a power line or road ROW through it and then objected to the town or the power company building it. My purchase price was reduced by the value "lost" to the easement. I should not be able to reclaim that value now without buying it back--from a willing seller. It also sounds like this particular farmer's property is mostly wetlands. I get why that is difficult to work around. But the buyer knew that when he bought it. (This may be behind a paywall. If so, I'll see if I can find a version I can share.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ts-are-putting-prairie-potholes-over-farmers/
Click to expand...
Haven't checked out the article, yet, but I agree with your comments about it completely.
 
I haven’t read article either but with rise of factory farming I would question the source. is this a farmer struggling to stay afloat and thinks more land will save the farm or just a large production outfit looking to increase yields?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top