Table 1

Table 1.

In ten states, at least three million acres of wetlands would lose Clean Water Act protection under S. 851 and H.R. 961.

Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data and results of interagency field tests.

Introduction: Swamped With Cash

Since 1990, a coalition of industry groups seeking to weaken federal protection of wetlands has backed legislation to dismantle the Clean Water Act. In the past year, the efforts of the industry coalition intensified dramatically, culminating in the passage of a sweeping wetlands deregulation package as part of a comprehensive bill, H.R. 961, which effectively repeals the Clean Water Act. This bill was approved by the House of Representatives in May of 1995.

In the Senate, a wetlands deregulation bill (S. 851), introduced by Senators J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) and Lauch Faircloth (R-NC), currently has 21 cosponsors. The Senate Environment committee is expected to act on wetlands legislation this spring. As this report goes to press, S. 851 is the only major Clean Water Act wetlands bill pending before the Senate. (See Note 1.)

Soon after the passage of the House wetlands deregulation bill, the government agencies responsible for implementing federal wetlands policies--the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service--undertook a series of field tests and evaluations to determine the on-the-ground effects of H.R. 961 and S. 851. The federal agency staff, joined in many cases by state officials and private consultants, evaluated the standards in the two bills for determining what is and what is not a wetland. The evaluation teams did not attempt to judge the ramifications of the many loopholes and exemptions for specific industries contained in the two bills. Instead, the teams simply estimated how many acres of existing wetlands--areas that are widely recognized as wetlands by scientists--would still qualify as "wetlands" under the proposed bills.

Wetlands Protections: Removed by Redefinition

Field tests of the wetlands definition in H.R. 961 and S. 851 yielded dramatic results. In every state, H.R. 961 and S. 851 would immediately and permanently remove protection for a significant percentage of remaining wetlands:

• For the lower 48 states, the two bills would eliminate Clean Water Act protections for a minimum of 73 million acres of wetlands--a minimum of 71 percent of all remaining wetlands in the country (see Figure 2, Table 2, and Table 3.)
• In 22 states, H.R. 961 and S. 851 would eliminate federal protections for at least of 80 percent of existing wetlands.
• In all but 7 states, H.R. 961 and S. 851 would remove at least half of all wetlands from eligibility for Clean Water Act protection.

It should be noted that these loss estimates represent a minimum, or lower bound, of the wetlands acreage that would be affected by the two bills. In some states, including many New England states, the evaluation teams provided a range of estimates for the acreage that would lose protection under HR. 961 and S. 851. The acreage figures cited in this report use the lowest value in the range as the "point estimate" for the acreage of wetlands that would lose protection. (See Note 2.)

Proponents of H.R. 961 and S. 851 have argued that the two bills would only affect "drier" wetlands systems--areas that an average person might have difficulty identifying as wetlands. Federal field tests show otherwise. When asked to describe the types of wetlands that would lose protection under the two bills, field teams mentioned, among other wetland types:

• Sweetbay and red maple swamps, bottomland hardwood wetlands, and swamp hardwoods;
• Many bogs and fens;
• Riparian (river-related) wetlands;
• Vernal pools, including rare vernal pool systems in California;
• Carolina bays;
• Non-tidal marshes, inland fresh marshes, coastal high marsh, saltmarsh;
• Floodplain wetlands; and
• Wet prairies, wet meadows, and saturated mountain meadows.

While not all of these wetlands are flooded or saturated year round, they are recognized as wetlands both by scientists and by the general public. Furthermore, they provide significant wetlands functions and values, including, in many cases, maintenance and improvement of water quality.

Sidebar 1: What the field teams had to say about H.R. 961 and S. 851.

Sidebar 2: What the field teams had to say about wetlands and water quality.

Developers Win, Everyone Else Loses

Not only do wetlands serve important habitat functions in their own right, but they help keep the nation's rivers, lakes and streams clean and healthy. Wetlands act as natural filters, trapping sediment, pathogens and other pollutants from waters that flow through them. Every time a wetland is destroyed, it makes it that much harder, and more expensive, to keep our water clean for drinking, swimming, fishing and other uses.

The federal field testing teams were asked to evaluate the types of wetlands functions that would be lost if H.R. 961 or S. 851 were to become law. In virtually every state, the wetlands that would lose protection were identified as providing important functions for maintaining water quality. These functions included filtration of pollutants, including pesticides and fertilizers, from runoff; sediment and toxicant retention; chemical and nutrient absorption; and removal or degradation of pathogens from waters flowing through wetlands into lakes, streams, and rivers. All of these functions are vital for maintaining healthy water quality, and are particularly valuable if the wetlands filter water that is later used--downstream or from groundwater--for public drinking water supplies.

Greater levels of pollution mean more contaminated drinking water sources, higher costs for drinking water treatment, and loss of jobs dependent on clean water. When wetlands are lost, these costs are passed on to taxpayers, local communities and the public at large. The developer of the wetland, however, walks away with most of the profits.

Following the Money: Political Contributions from Anti-wetlands PACs

Proponents of wetlands deregulation have been lobbying for years, and lobbying hard, to substantially weaken the Clean Water Act's protections for wetlands. (See Note 3.) The most prominent anti-wetlands group in the nation, the misleadingly named "National Wetlands Coalition," includes a membership of corporations and industry associations that reads like a "who's who" list of major wetlands developers. Included in their membership is the Louisiana Land and Exploration Company, a major oil prospector in Louisiana's threatened coastal wetlands; Exxon, Arco, BP America, and other major oil and gas companies; the National Association of Homebuilders; the International Council of Shopping Centers; the National Cotton Council, which represents major cotton producers, wholesalers and processors; and the American Petroleum Institute, a trade coalition of petroleum extraction and refining companies.

Nearly all the members of the National Wetlands Coalition, and most of the members of the American Petroleum Institute, have a direct financial interest in weakening the Clean Water Act's protections for wetlands. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires anyone who wants to drain or fill a wetland to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Analyses of the Corps' permitting record suggest that the Corps rarely denies wetlands permits. Nevertheless, the Corps does deny some permits, (See Note 4) and complying with Section 404 is sometimes costly for permittees wishing to undertake major projects in wetlands. Oil and gas companies, shopping mall developers, and agribusinesses would find many new and inexpensive sites for development if Clean Water Act wetlands protections were relaxed.

For the industries that would benefit financially from weaker wetlands protections, spending money to weaken Clean Water Act wetlands protections is a potentially lucrative investment. That's one reason why PACs associated with companies that are members of the National Wetlands Coalition and the American Petroleum Institute have spent more than $25 million on political campaign contributions, including presidential campaign contributions and contributions to unsuccessful candidates and candidates who have since left office, since 1989.

Anti-wetlands PAC Contributions to the House of Representatives

Anti-wetlands PACs have given considerable sums of money to influence current members of Congress. In the 1994 and 1996 campaign cycles (See Note 5,) anti-wetlands PACs associated with members of the National Wetlands Coalition and the American Petroleum Institute made $5.5 million in contributions to current members of the House of Representatives. (Table 4 and Table 5.)

These contributions appear to have yielded results in the legislative arena. An amendment offered on the House floor by Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) that would have restored a scientifically sound definition of wetlands to the Clean Water Act was defeated by a vote of 247 to 180. During the 1994 and 1996 election cycles, anti-wetlands PACs gave more than $4.1 million to members of the House who voted against the Gilchrest amendment, but only $1.15 million to members who voted for the Gilchrest amendment. (See Figure 3.) On average, members of the House who voted for the Gilchrest amendment received about $6,400 each over the period studied, as compared with nearly $17,000 each for members who voted against the amendent. (See Figure 4.)

Eighteen anti-wetlands PACs gave more than $100,000 over the 1994 and 1996 election cycles; their contributions were skewed heavily towards those who voted against the Gilchrest amendment. (See Figure 5.)

Of the 25 top recipients of anti-wetlands PAC money who voted on the Gilchrest amendment, 22 voted against Gilchrest (Table 6). Anti-wetlands PAC contributions during 1995 were particularly tilted in favor members who voted against the Gilchrest amendment: of members who voted against the Gilchrest amendment, 87 percent received anti-wetlands contributions during 1995, while just 55 percent of pro-Gilchrest voters received contributions during 1995. Even contributions to members of the House water and environment subcommittee, of which Rep. Gilchrest is a member, heavily favored members who voted against Rep. Gilchrest's amendment. (See Figure 6.)

Anti-wetlands PAC Contributions to the Senate

Anti-wetlands PAC contributions are strongly correlated with cosponsorship of S. 851, the anti-wetlands bill currently pending in the Senate. The 21 Senators who are currently listed as cosponsors of S. 851 received, on average, $95,393 in anti-wetlands PAC contributions from 1990 through 1995. In comparison, Senators not listed as cosponsors of S. 851 received an average of $50,249 over the same period. All but two cosponsors of S. 851 received higher than average contributions from anti-wetlands PACs over the period studied. (See Figure 7.)

As with contributions to the House, anti-wetlands PAC contributions to the Senate appear to be increasingly skewed towards Senators who have cosponsored S. 851. In 1995, contributions from anti-wetlands PACs to the 21 cosponsors of S. 851 totaled $352,314--more than $18,000 higher than the total contributions to the other 79 Senators. In addition, anti-wetlands PACs were nearly twice as likely to have contributed in 1995 to Senators who had cosponsored S. 851, and gave nearly 4 times as much, on average, to cosponsors of S. 851 as to non-cosponsors. (See Figure 8.)

Sidebar 3: Other loopholes in H.R. 961 and S. 851.

Sidebar 4: Why wetlands lose protection under S. 851 and H.R. 961.

Sidebar 5: What is the National Wetlands Coalition?

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Molly Evans who designed and produced the report, and to Kathy Nemsick, Lea Hardwick, Linda Young and Allison Daly for coordinating the release of Swamped With Cash. We are grateful to Ken Cook and Richard Wiles for their editing and insight.

We would also like to thank the many individuals who reviewed early drafts of this report for their assistance in improving the final version. We have made every effort to respond to their comments, and to double-check the data and analyses presented herein.

Swamped with Cash was made possible by grants from The Pew Charitable Trusts, The Moriah Fund, The Packard Foundation, and the Florence and John Schumann Foundation. A computer equipment grant from the Apple Computer Corporation made the analysis possible. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the supporters listed above.

Copyright March 1996 by the Environmental Working Group/The Tides Foundation. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. Printed on recycled paper.

Cover photograph: "Scene in Marsh on Anacostia River, Washington, Capitol in distance," ca. 1882. Photography by John K. Hillers

Environmental Working Group

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C. The Environmental Working Group is a project of the Tides Foundation, a California Public Benefit Corporation based in San Francisco that provides administrative and program support services to nonprofit programs and projects.

Kenneth A. Cook, President
Mark B. Childress, Vice President for Policy
Richard Wiles, Vice President for Research

Clean Water Network

The Clean Water Network is a coalition of more than 800 organizations representing environmentalists, commercial fishermen, recreational anglers, surfers, boaters, farmers, faith communities, environmental justice advocates, labor unions, and urban communities.

Kathy Nemsick, Coordinator
Lea Hardwick, Assistant Coordinator
Linda Young, Southeast Field Coordinator

To order a copy

Copies of this report may be ordered for $20.00 each (plus 7% sales tax or $2.80 for Washington, D.C. residents) and $3.00 for postage and handling. Payment must accompany all orders. Please make checks payable to:

Environmental Working Group
1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 667-6982 (phone)
(202) 232-2592 (fax)
info@ewg.org (e-mail)