Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 41
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy 2— A Selective History of Changing Goals and Authority for Aquatic Ecosystem Management Throughout the nation's history, public policy often has supported modification of aquatic ecosystems. Now, a new focus is needed for these aquatic ecosystem management policies. However, to appreciate the challenges ahead in both science and public policy, a historical perspective on the changing goals of aquatic ecosystem management will set the stage for the rest of this report. Early lock and dam systems were put in place to facilitate the primary means of transportation for bulk goods—the inland waterways. The Swamplands Acts of the mid-1800s granted vast tracts of wetlands to the states in the lower Mississippi River Valley, on the condition that the lands be drained and used in agricultural production. By the turn of the twentieth century, the leaders of the progressive conservation movement argued for a more comprehensive program of water resource development, including storage projects, channels, and levees, for the purpose of assuring the long-term material prosperity of the nation. Thus, the Reclamation Act of 1902 was an effort to develop water projects in the west to create small communities and farms by providing low-cost and reliable irrigation water. Gifford Pinchot, a leader of the progressive conservation movement declared, "Conservation stands emphatically for the development and use of water power now, without delay... [and] for the immediate construction of navigable waterways..." (Nash, 1968). In the 1920s a series of congressional actions began to increase federal flood control project construction, primarily in the lower Mississippi River
OCR for page 42
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Valley, to protect existing properties and open up new lands to agricultural production. By the mid-1930s the progressive vision for water development had become national policy. Initial federal efforts to engage in river basin water management began with the Lower Mississippi Valley Commission during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. The 1934 National Resources Planning Board (NRPB), which undertook the task of defining how the natural resources of the nation could direct that era's weak economy to economic health, argued that water control structures were a part of the nation's economic relief and recovery effort; it stated (NRPB, 1934, p. 255): [I]n the interest of the national welfare there must be national control of all running waters of the United States, from the desert trickle that might make an acre or two productive to the rushing flood waters of the Mississippi. The NRPB's comprehensive watershed management program also included permanently converting steeply sloped lands that were in agricultural use to forest cover. The purpose served by reforested land was limited: these restored lands would reduce the intensity of runoff in order to reduce flooding. Deep percolation would store rainfall in ground water that would later be available for economic uses. In 1950, President Truman's Water Policy Commission stated that integrated river basin planning could lead to the development of the nation's economy: . . . the American people are awakening to the new concept that the river basins are economic units; that many problems center around the use and control of the water resources.... In summarizing the thinking of this era, Gilbert White articulated three elements to what Wengert (1981) later called the "pure doctrine" of river basin development: the multiple-purpose water storage project, an integrated system of projects within river basins, and the goal of water resources management being regional economic development. Plans for water development projects were expected to be defined through rational analysis by water management scientists, who would foresee the opportunities for water development and formulate the optimal sequence of projects to be put in place over time. This faith in scientific planning could be traced to the progressive era. For example, President Theodore Roosevelt, in a 1908 letter transmitting the report of the Inland Waterways Commission to the Congress (Morell, 1956), stated,
OCR for page 43
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy [T]he decision to undertake any project should rest on actual need ascertained by investigation and judgment of experts and on its relation to the great river system and the general plan, never on mere clamor. The scientific expertise to direct watershed development rationally was said to reside in the federal government. In addition, the commerce clause of the constitution, and the fact that basin boundaries crossed state lines, demanded the exercise of federal authority. In the 1930s, the NRPB proposed developing plans for 17 separate river basins that would culminate in "...detailed engineering, social, financial and legal studies of water projects..." (NRPB, 1934). It was only then "[t]hat further studies... [were] needed concerning the division of responsibility and costs among federal, state, and local authorities" (NRPB, 1934). The execution of the rationally determined water development plan assumed that new organizations would be created to implement the actions dictated by the technical analysis, but only the Tennessee Valley Authority was established. On the matter of cost distribution, the federal government was believed to have the greater financial capacity for basin-scale development, and this belief resulted in limitations on cost sharing, and repayment obligations for the beneficiaries of federal expenditures on water development. This repayment philosophy encouraged the political demand for water development projects. Largely because of incentives created by federal cost-sharing policy, projects identified within plans were not executed as expected. With the federal government paying most project costs, the choice of projects for funding priority was made in Congress as part of a logrolling process. The politics of project funding meant that individual federal water project plans of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Bureau of Reclamation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Soil Conservation Service in fact defined the content of watershed plans. These projects were designed by separate agencies to meet each agency's internal engineering design and project performance criteria. The regional planning approach to water management failed for another reason. Water management projects and programs are ultimately limited tools for directing economic change in a region. Water planning tends to be oriented toward the solution of perceived problems, such as controlling flooding or providing transportation where it is needed. Water planning reacts to larger technical, social, and economic forces, rather than directing those forces. Because water management is a reactive process, inflexible plans to implement projects that are based on conditions at some point in time are
OCR for page 44
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy rapidly made obsolete by dynamic technical, social, and economic change. A renewed effort to prioritize projects according to federal river basin plans came with the passage of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (P.L. 89– 80). That act created a federal Water Resources Council and authorized a national system of river basin commissions. The council, with members from several cabinet departments, was expected to integrate federal water resource management efforts, recognizing that environmental protection concerns were receiving increasing public attention. The river basin commissions were expected to integrate federal and nonfederal activities in river basin planning and project implementation, reducing federal dominance of that process. However, the Water Resources Council, with leadership dominated by the federal water project construction agencies, emphasized traditional federal water development projects. New project evaluation guidelines were developed, and project cost-sharing reforms were studied. River basin planning continued to be development project oriented: national water assessments focused exclusively on hydrology and water supply, and the regional water management plans developed became lists of federal water projects. As much as any other factor, the intent of the Water Resources Planning Act was undone by the council's failure to incorporate many of the new social concerns for the quality of the environment in its program development. Through the 1960s, the nation had built a large capital stock of dams and water delivery systems, but as the nation moved into the 1970s, the concept of a ''capital stock" in water resources expanded beyond engineering works to include the remaining free-flowing rivers and, of more importance, the associated riparian lands, uplands, wetlands, and environmental attributes associated with them. The result was a steady reduction of public support for federal water project investment. By the 1980s, both the council and the federal commitment to the basin commission were gone as change in social demands on aquatic ecosystems shifted from traditional economic development to environmental concerns. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT By the 1970s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had superseded federal water project construction agencies as the focal point for federal water resource management. The EPA mission, defined under the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95– 217), was to lead the nation in "...restoration of the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the nation's waters...." Under the Clean Water Act of
OCR for page 45
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy 1977, EPA emphasized programs addressing the chemical (more specifically, nutrients, bacteria, organic enrichment, toxics, heavy metals, pesticides, and salts) contamination of the nation's waters. In addition to water quality management, EPA was given responsibility for implementing a suite of programs created by environmental legislation in the 1970s and 1980s, much of which was motivated by concerns about the nation's aquatic ecosystems. Historically, wastewater management emerged as a national concern at the same time that federal water development programs were being established. However, wastewater management was treated as a public health concern, unlike the emphasis in water project development, which was to promote the material welfare of the nation. With the recognition of the germ theory of disease in the second half of the nineteenth century, wastewater was expected to be collected and removed from areas of population concentration through sewers that discharged to nearby rivers, lakes, and estuaries downstream of the waste discharge. Communities were expected to treat waters that were taken from the rivers for public water supply. Construction of facilities for wastewater handling and water supply was the financial responsibility of local governments and affected industries. The broad concept of "water quality" management for environmental purposes developed slowly as the aquatic ecosystem effects of concentrated point source discharges became evident. Even as the national concern shifted from wastewater management for public health to broadly defined water quality, the federal government did not take a strong management role. The 1948 Federal Water Pollution Control Act was an initial effort that limited the federal government's role to research and monitoring. A series of amendments to the 1948 act, beginning in 1956, culminated in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92–500). These were more than simple amendments, because they gradually altered federal-state relationships for point source pollution control. With the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (subsequently renamed the Clean Water Act of 1977), the states became the implementers of federally established standards and regulations for municipal and industrial discharges. Because the federal government, represented by EPA, needed to overcome the inertia of state historical dominance, the cost of the new federal presence was eased by massive federal aid to municipalities for pollution control equipment and by special income tax treatment for private costs of pollution control equipment. With this history and policy environment, it is not surprising that as EPA sought to establish a strong and dominant federal role (vis-à-vis local and state governments) the agency focused almost exclusively
OCR for page 46
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy on setting and enforcing standards for discharges of specific contaminants to the nation's waters. Nonetheless, there was some limited attention to watershed-scale "water quality" planning and management. However, efforts at areawide planning under Section 208 of P.L. 92–500 fell short for a number of institutional reasons. Also, the Clean Water Act of 1977 did recognize the need to consider in-stream flows, nonpoint source pollution, riparian habitat, and wetlands as part of a watershed-scale program for improvement of the nation's waters. Still, the EPA focus remained on reduction of chemical inputs and resulting concentrations in the waters; EPA's attention was not elevated to aquatic ecosystem restoration as conceived of in this report. Thus, with its focus on chemical contamination, land use was a concern solely in relation to sediment and chemical delivery to the waters. Stream flow patterns and levels were considered only as they determined the assimilative capacity of receiving waters. To illustrate, the establishment of waste discharge standards in relation to the 7-day low-flow regime in streams represented a recognition that the pattern and volume of hydrologic flows determined the assimilative capacity of the waters and hence set waste discharge control requirements. The Willamette River case study (Appendix A) in this report argues that stream flow regulation through water release from dams has been essential to chemical water quality in that river, but other elements of the aquatic ecosystem have not been restored. Permits for alteration of wetlands, under the Section 404 permit authority of the Clean Water Act of 1977 were reviewed primarily in terms of the effects on water quality; however, other aquatic ecosystem functions of wetlands were slowly introduced as part of this Section 404 review process. Starting in the mid-1970s, EPA recognized that continued destruction of wetlands, rivers, and other shallow aquatic habitat was inconsistent with its efforts to improve the chemical quality of water. At the same time, disagreements involving EPA, COE, permit applicants, and environmental groups concerning the geographic scope of federal authority to protect wetlands and riparian habitats, as well as the kinds of development and agricultural activities subject to the program, were occasionally resolved in the courts. Until the mid-1980s (the following section), COE was often put in the position of using its Section 404 authority to protect aquatic ecosystems at the same time that federal water development pressures supported the physical destruction of those systems. However, although
OCR for page 47
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy COE's administration of the Section 404 program has changed significantly in recent years, the program at best has become a tool for retarding the loss of and protecting aquatic ecosystems, not for restoring them, with the incidental exception of some restoration mitigation projects. Further, the Clean Water Act of 1977, despite its objective including physical restoration, established no programs for EPA or COE to use to pursue actual physical restoration of aquatic ecosystems. Over the last 20 years, the nation has made considerable progress in controlling and reducing certain kinds of chemical pollution of its rivers, lakes, and wetlands. Biological oxygen demand loadings from sewage treatment plants have been reduced significantly. Direct industrial discharges have been controlled. The use of certain agricultural pesticides, such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and other chlorinated hydrocarbons, has been restricted or banned. As a result, the chemical water quality, including dissolved oxygen (DO) levels, in many lakes and rivers has improved, and loadings of some toxic contaminants have decreased. At the same time, it is well recognized that the nation's water quality programs have not been effective in controlling and reducing loadings of nutrients, sediments, and some toxicants associated with "nonpoint source" pollution from agricultural, urban storm water discharge, mining, and oil and gas extraction activities. This kind of pollution results typically from material changes in the landscape or watershed of affected aquatic ecosystems—removal of forests or other native vegetation, diversion and replacement by exposed soil or impervious material—coupled with dispersed addition of agricultural or lawn fertilizers, animal manure, and other chemicals. Airborne contaminants, including sulfate, nitrate, and metals, add to these nonpoint source loadings. The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act should contribute to reducing these atmospheric inputs. The causes of nonpoint source pollution suggest that restoration of the land surface within aquatic ecosystem watersheds on a landscape basis may be one strategy to reduce loadings of sediments, nutrients, and toxicants. However, limited attention has been paid to aquatic ecosystem restoration as defined in this report; the Clean Water Act's mandate "to restore..." was confined to a particular and, from an aquatic ecosystem perspective, narrow focus on chemical pollution, concerns in Section 404 about the evolution of wetlands notwithstanding. Within this limited domain there has been success, but challenges remain.
OCR for page 48
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy NONSTRUCTURAL APPROACHES TO FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Prior to 1966, the predominant federal approach to flood loss reduction was the construction of flood control works to reduce the height and velocity of floodwaters. These works often have severe impacts on aquatic environments. In 1966, a prestigious federal task force on federal flood control policy recommended that nonstructural measures such as flood warning systems and zoning to control building in the floodplain be placed on a par with structural measures such as dams, dikes, channelization, and levees. The goal of nonstructural measures is to adjust the use of the floodplain to the flood threat, rather than modify flooding. This 1966 report was a turning point in federal floodplain management policy. It led, initially, to adoption by Congress in 1968 of a National Flood Insurance Program. This program authorized the mapping of the nation's floodplains and offered federally subsidized flood insurance for existing structures in the floodplain, providing communities and states agreed to regulate new construction. Since the program's adoption in 1968, federal agencies have prepared floodplain maps for more than 20,000 communities. Almost 18,000 communities have enrolled in the program and adopted floodplain regulations meeting federal standards for new development. These regulations tightly control development or fills within "floodway" areas, near the channels of rivers and streams. This helps to protect natural vegetation and floodplain contours. Regulations also require that development in outer flood-fringe areas be elevated or floodproofed to the 100-year flood elevation. Floodplain mapping, flood insurance, and regulations are the best-known nonstructural floodplain management measures in use across the nation. However, relocation efforts, flood warning systems, floodproofing of structures, and evacuation from the floodplain are other nonstructural measures applied in both pre-and postflood disaster contexts. Gradually, federal agencies and Congress have, over a period of years, placed greater emphasis on protection and maintenance of natural values such as wetlands in both structural and nonstructural floodplain management. A "Unified National Program for Floodplain Management," prepared for Congress by a task force of federal agencies in 1976, called for protection of floodplain "beneficial" natural values. Congress has gradually required greater cost sharing for structural flood control measures. The trend toward nonstructural approaches and protection of natural values culminated in the 1990
OCR for page 49
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy Omnibus Water Bill (P.L. 101–640). This act (Water Resources Development Act of 1990) requires that COE achieve the wetland no-net loss goal based on both acreage and function for new water projects (Section 13). The COE is also directed to enhance existing environmental values of projects and is required to carry out wetland restoration and creation demonstration projects. The act excludes from the benefit base for justifying new water projects any new or substantially reconstructed structure built in the floodplain after July 2, 1991 (Section 14). FEDERALLY OWNED LANDS AND PUBLIC INCENTIVES FOR PRIVATE DECISIONS Federal influence on the nation's aquatic resources has not been limited to water project construction and water quality regulation. Land use decisions on vast acreages of federally owned lands have affected watersheds. The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) grazing right allocations and grazing fees determined the number of animal units on the land over much of the West's watersheds. The Forest Service's management of national forestland has affected aquatic ecosystems. Federal wildlife refuges have been managed in ways that altered habitats, favoring one species over another. Planning processes for all these agencies have been undertaken, frequently with the purpose of balancing varying management goals, including aquatic ecosystem goals. Nonetheless, much as the water development agencies had a mission for flood control, navigation, or irrigation, these land management agencies were driven by their own missions. The BLM "produced" animal grazing units; the Forest Service produced timber; the Fish and Wildlife Service produced deer and ducks. Water and related lands under the control of these agencies were managed to achieve these resource goals. Perhaps the most powerful federal force for change in aquatic ecosystems has been the national agricultural policy. Early encouragement of wetlands drainage through the Swamplands Acts was followed years later by federal financial and technical assistance for private drainage of wetlands for agricultural purposes. The drainage decisions of landowners were also indirectly influenced by federal flood control and drainage projects (Stavins and Jaffee, 1991), by provisions of the federal tax code, by agricultural price and income support programs, and by other public efforts to encourage agricultural production (Kramer and Shabman, 1988). Federal programs likewise influence crop choice and tillage decisions that can affect aquatic ecosystems. The sugar program supports
OCR for page 50
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy continued production of that crop in South Florida, with the resulting possibility of adverse effects on water distribution and quality in Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades. The structure of the price support programs for all crops encourages the production of crops in places and at times in which soil erosion may be aggravated. Export policy can create boom periods when erodible lands are brought into cultivation. Although chemical use patterns on farms may be a product of agricultural policy and of the price and production incentives it creates, the link between agricultural policy and farm decisions on land, water, and chemical use is not always clear cut. It is not certain that in the absence of agricultural policy, different land, water, and chemical use decisions would be made. What is clear is that agricultural producers' decisions currently are made in response to government policy constraints and incentives as much as to competitive market prices. CHANGE AT CENTURY'S END In the last few years, federal policies toward management of aquatic ecosystems have undergone a dramatic change. In general, through a series of congressional actions in the mid-1980s, federal incentives to destroy or alter aquatic ecosystems were significantly reduced. These actions have, therefore, contributed to protection of these systems but not to their physical restoration. Whatever progress has been made in reducing certain kinds and sources of chemical pollution and in reducing physical loss, restoration of the nation's aquatic ecosystems has not been high on the nation's agenda. It was only in 1990 that Congress took a number of initial steps to put the federal government behind actual physical restoration measures. Congressional Actions in the Mid-1980s In the mid-1980s, Congress took a number of steps that reduced federal financial support for aquatic ecosystem degradation. The 1986 Water Resources Development Act (P.L. 99–662) placed major new cost burdens on the beneficiaries of water project construction, often states and their political subdivisions. The Swampbuster program of the 1985 Food Security Act eliminated U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) benefits in many circumstances where farmers cleared and drained wetlands for crop production. The Internal Revenue Service Tax Code was amended to alter the tax treatment of agricultural drainage expenses in wetlands. A number of factors explained these actions. Due to budgetary
OCR for page 51
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy constraints, the federal government reduced its willingness to finance water projects, just as it phased down the EPA construction grants program for wastewater treatment facilities. The federal government has shifted the burden for a variety of programs to the states. In addition, the demand for environmental protection services has grown. Changes in these economic incentive programs have contributed to a substantial retardation in the rate of wetland loss per year and a substantial slow-down in the rate of loss of free-flowing rivers and natural lakes due to construction of dams, levees, and water diversions. Beaumont (1978) indicated that the building of large dams in North America peaked in 1968 and has since declined. Building of nonfederal dams decreased from 2,000 per year in the 1960s to about 1,240 per year in the 1970s (Johnston Associates, 1989). As worthwhile as they are, these programs were not designed to accomplish actual physical restoration of aquatic ecosystems. What physical restoration has occured has been largely incidental. For example, although the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was designed primarily to give farmers incentives to take highly erodible lands out of production, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) have used the CRP to restore some small wetlands, such as prairie pothole wetlands in Minnesota (see Chapter 6 and Appendix A). Likewise, the FWS has been able to put easements on and restore some former wetlands subject to forfeiture by the Farmers Home Administration or the Resolution Trust Corporation. Congressional Initiatives in the 1989-1990 Session In the 1989-1990 session, Congress and the Bush administration took several actions designed to achieve real physical restoration of certain aquatic ecosystems. Some of these actions were in part a response to the initiatives of states and nonprofit organizations. Indeed, the states are developing the necessary planning expertise and research capacity to execute water management programs. We mention some examples. In the mid-1980s, Florida initiated its Restore the Everglades program. This included the Kissimmee River demonstration project, designed largely by the South Florida Water Management District. In 1990, Congress appropriated some $6 million for COE to pursue further Kissimmee River restoration work and design. In addition, Congress appropriated $550,000 to have the National Park Service conduct a detailed hydrologic study of the Everglades to increase
OCR for page 52
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy understanding of the current distribution of water in South Florida and of the flows needed to restore the Everglades ecosystem. In 1988, in part in response to recommendations made by the newly formed Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, the governor of Louisiana established an office to coordinate all of the state's coastal management and restoration efforts, and in 1989, by a 2-to-1 margin, the voters of the state approved a referendum setting up a coastal wetlands restoration fund, financed by new oil and gas taxes, with revenues up to $25 million per year. In 1990, Congress enacted the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (United States Senate, 1990) that establishes a joint federal-state task force to identify and implement wetland restoration projects in Louisiana and a joint planning group to devise an overall plan for the restoration of coastal Louisiana, with the source of funding being a portion of the federal tax surcharge on nonmotor vehicular oil and gas consumption. A third example concerns the Stillwater wetlands in Nevada. A plan to acquire water rights to restore Stillwater wetlands was initiated largely by an environmental group, the Environmental Defense Fund, following a proposal put together by a task force in the mid-1970s. What helped to make the proposal a reality was the appropriation of about $1 million in federal funds. The proposal calls for the acquisition of 50,000 acre-feet of water to be purchased from willing sellers who are farmers. Nevada funding has come from a State Parks and Wildlife Bond. The Nature Conservancy has advanced funds as well. The largest commitment to wetland restoration made by Congress in 1990 was the adoption of the Agricultural Wetland Reserve Program as part of the 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (P.L. 101–624). This program could help to reconvert one million acres of cropland to wetlands, and it may be funded largely, albeit indirectly, through reduction of USDA subsidies that would otherwise apply to these croplands. EMERGING ROLE OF THE STATES The history of aquatic ecosystem management in the twentieth century in the United States has been one of federal domination. The federal river basin planning process came to be identified with the missions and priorities of federal water project construction agencies; the states tended to retreat from an active role in this process and take a "let the federal government do it—and pay for it" attitude (Allee et al., 1982). The original Kissimmee River project, which made
OCR for page 53
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy major alterations in that aquatic ecosystem, was designed by a federal agency (with state acceptance of the plan) in accord with the long-standing federal priorities of flood reduction and land enhancement for economic development. Federal domination of water quality management for point source control was a response to a perceived failure of the states to take adequate action. The nature of point source control made such federal leadership institutionally possible. The recognition that point source wastewater treatment will not yield water quality goals has now directed water quality management to land use-dominated issues. The decline in federal water development activities, which sought to increase the reliable "supply" of water, meant that reallocation of waters among aquatic ecosystem values has become paramount. Water allocation and land use decisions fall logically to the states and their political subdivisions, because it is there that the tools for water management (land use controls, water laws, etc.) exist. The National Governors Association made this point in a 1973 water policy statement that "[t]he states have primary authority and responsibility for water management" (Wilson, 1981). Now, nearly 20 years later, substantial responsibilities for water management are returning to the states and the states are acting on those responsibilities. The federal government has reduced its willingness to finance traditional water development projects. The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 placed major new cost burdens on the beneficiaries of water project construction, often states and their political subdivisions. The construction grants program for wastewater treatment facilities has been phased down. In this environment the states are doing more. Many states have established and capitalized revolving fund accounts to assist in wastewater treatment plant construction. In Minnesota, state financial resources have been put behind a "Reinvest in Minnesota" program to restore wetlands. As important as funding is leadership. The states are developing the necessary planning expertise and research capacity to execute water management programs. The Kissimmee River restoration project has been designed largely by the South Florida Water Management District. States in the Chesapeake Bay region have developed effective management programs that now dwarf federal efforts in that region in treatment facility planning and land use management. Also, where states have felt a need to act in concert they have often done so without federal prompting. Congress got its feet wet in the 1989-1990 session in promoting certain wetland restoration programs. Many states have shown a
OCR for page 54
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy strong interest in taking the initiative in developing programs for aquatic ecosystem restoration. The stage is therefore set for a major national aquatic ecosystem restoration program both to build on and to stimulate grassroots, local and state government restoration efforts. REFERENCES Allee, D., L. Dworsky, and R. North, eds. 1982. United States water planning and management. Pp. 1–42 in United River Basin Management—Stage II. American Water Resources Association, Minneapolis, Minn. Beaumont, P. 1978. Man's impact on river systems: A world-wide view. Area 10:38–41. Clean Water Act of 1977. P.L. 95–217, Dec. 27, 1977, 91 Stat. 1566. Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act. P.L. 101-646, Nov. 29, 1990. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. P.L. 92–500, Oct. 18, 1972. 86 Stat. 816. Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. P.L. 101–624. Johnston, L. R., Associates. 1989. A status report on the nation's floodplain management activity. An Interim Report. Contract No. TV-72105A. Prepared for the Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management. Knoxville, Tenn. 465 pp. Kramer, R. A., and L. A. Shabman. 1988. Incentives for agricultural development of U.S. wetlands: A case study of the bottomland hardwoods of the lower Mississippi River valley, Chapter 6. Pp. 175–201 in T. Phipps, P. Crosson, and K. Price, eds., Agriculture and the Environment. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. Morrell, B. 1956. Our Nation's Water Resources—Policies and Politics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill. Nash, R. 1968. P. 9 in The American Environment: Readings in the History of Conservation. Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass. National Resources Planning Board (NRPB). 1934. Report on National Planning and Public Works in Relation to Natural Resources and Including Land Use and Water Resources. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. President's Water Policy Commission. 1950. Ten Rivers in America's Future. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Stavins, R. N., and A. D. Jaffee. 1991. Unintended impacts of public investments on private decisions: The depletion of forested wetlands, June 1980. Am. Econ. Rev. 80(30):337–352. United States Senate. 1990. Congressional Record—Senate October 26, S. 17360. Water Resources Development Act of 1986. P.L. 99–662, Nov. 17, 1985, 100 Stat. 4082. Water Resources Development Act of 1990. P.L. 101–640, 1990 Omnibus Water Bill, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4604. Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. P.L. 89–90. Wengert, N. 1981. A critical review of the river basin as a focus for resources planning, development, and management . Pp. 9–27 in R. North, L. Dworsky, and D. Allee, eds., Unified River Basin Management. American Water Resources Association, Minneapolis, Minn. Wilson, L. U. 1981. State water management capacity. Pp. 399–404 in D. Allee, L. Dworsky, and R. North, eds., Unified River Basin Management—Stage II. American Water Resources Association, Minneapolis, Minn.
Representative terms from entire chapter: