STATE WETLANDS LAW DEBATED; FARMERS ASK FOR NO NEW REGULATIONS UNLESS NECESSARY

PORTAGEVILLE - Members of a joint legislative committee were urged by a group of Southeast Missouri farmers Wednesday to refrain from passing any state laws to protect wetlands until federal regulations are clarified.

"I do not believe Missouri needs a state wetlands law," said Ray Rowland, a farmer from Stoddard County. "Federal policy is already quite involved and a state law would only lead to duplication. Special interest groups are pushing this at the state level because they fear a setback at the federal level."

Others who testified at the hearing, attended by about 40 people at the University of Missouri Delta Research Center in Portageville, echoed Rowland's feeling that the state should take a hands-off approach for now.

State Sen. Jerry Howard, D-Dexter, and Rep. Larry Thomason, D-Kennett, who are co-chairing the committee, agreed that such legislation was not a priority of the committee.

"We are trying to run interference between the various interest groups and state and federal agencies until this whole issue gets resolved," explained Howard. "There is no proposed legislation planned by this committee at this time. We don't want another layer of bureaucracy until something is worked out at the federal level.

"If the state gets in the business of wetlands, we want to make sure we don't further duplicate the problems of the federal level."

Thomason added, "We are going through a time of flux with this wetlands issue and the purpose of our committee is to ensure there is sanity in state regulations if they become necessary."

The federal government has adopted a policy of no net loss on wetlands, which means that for every acre taken out of wetlands for development, another acre must be set aside to replace it. In the Missouri Bootheel where the prime farm acreage was once swamp land, drained in the late 1800s, just about all the land is designated as wetlands.

The big problem is that four different federal agencies make wetland designations and their definitions and concerns all differ. Farmers wanting to do anything on land designated as a wetland must seek permits from the different agencies and often get conflicting opinions and excessive delays.

Rep. Sam Leake, D-Laddonia, said it is important that the legislative committee become familiar with the wetlands issue because, "I think the state will eventually have a bigger role in wetlands than it has today."

Most of those who testified complained that the federal agencies do not understand what wetlands are, do not use common sense in enforcing the regulations, and are doing little more than trying to take land they don't own without paying for it.

"I think they (environmental interest groups) have found a brilliant way to steal our land by using the laws of America," said Rowland.

"This is the biggest land grab that's ever been devised in my lifetime," declared Bob Hardin, a Stoddard County farmer. "I don't understand how this got started to begin with. A deed is evidently worth nothing in this state."

Brad Jolly of Fisk outlined some of the problems he has had with land he owns being designated as wetlands. Jolly said he was concerned that farmers were not represented in drafting the regulations.

"A lot of farmers are concerned," said Jolly.

Jolly said some federal agencies had told him how valuable parts of his land were for wetlands. "If it's valuable, why don't they own it instead of the farmer," he asked.

Hardin said some areas have been designated as wetlands, even though the only reason they are wet is because of heavy rain.

Hardin said he likes wildlife and does what he can to protect it. But he said, "If these people have so much money to lobby the federal government, why don't they rent this land?

"I don't want someone coming in and saying you should do this for the good of the people. If it's for the good of the people, they should help pay for it."

He maintained most farmers would be willing to rent the land if they can't farm it. "For the right money, they can get all the wetlands they want in Stoddard County."

But James Fletcher, a farmer from Gideon, said he didn't have any desire to give up his land and that the government was violating the Constitution by trying to restrict wetlands.

"I have no land I want to give the government. I bought it to farm, not to sell," remarked Fletcher.

Tom Jennings of Sikeston said that in acquiring wetlands, the federal government should pay for the land taken and also compensate for the reduced value of farm land adjacent to a wetland.

Lloyd Smith, chief of staff to U.S. Rep. Bill Emerson, R-Cape Girardeau, told the group they should not underestimate the influence of the environmental groups pushing the issue.

"There are people out there who believe this land is theirs to control regardless of whose name is on the deed," said Smith. "They are a very potent force ... (and) this will be a very uphill battle."

Smith explained that in 1989 the federal government changed the definition of wetlands. The present problems surfaced as a result of rules changes that circumvented the entire legislative process.

Smith said Emerson is working with other House members to pass legislation to bring the rules under control.

"It's not an easy process," warned Smith. "We're going to try and correct the problem."

Thomason praised Emerson for his efforts on the wetlands issue and said he was satisfied the congressman was doing everything within his power to bring some "saneness" to the issue.

A lot of Wednesday's testimony was critical of the erratic way wetlands are determined.

"Based on the other testimony that we have gotten, it is clear the federal government does not have a clear understanding of wetlands or a clear definition of no-net loss," said Howard.

"Federal agencies are classifying as wetland basically anything in the Bootheel that is not being farmed," pointed out Mike Geske of Matthews. "If they are going to take land, the agencies should be absolutely sure it is a wetland."

Geske said the law now requires the property owner to prove land is not a wetland. He said the law should be changed to put the burden of proof on the government.

He also proposed increasing the state sales tax to pay for purchase of wetlands.

Fletcher said he cannot understand how some farmland could be designated a wetland when a large combine could be run over a field four days after nine straight days of rain.

"We need some sanity," he declared.

Jennings pointed out that some of the ridges in his area that were farmed even when the Bootheel was a swamp meet the definition of wetlands.

Jennings said he also could not understand how the Missouri Department of Natural Resources could cut back on checking contamination of drinking water due to a shortage of funds, but still have money to check for compliance with wetland laws.

"I can't understand how DNR would put more emphasis on rain water than drinking water," he remarked.

Fletcher suggested it makes better sense to have the Missouri Department of Agriculture rather than the DNR overseeing federal wetlands policy in the state. He said legislators should include that provision in any future law.