Pass the Ketchup

This "news" is three weeks old—so you'll forgive me for being many days late and many dollars short with this—but earlier this week, a David Letterman joke called my attention to yet more administrative deviousness.

Remember when Reagan's pals tried to say that ketchup was a vegetable? And how Bush suggested that burger-flipping and soda-jerking could be considered manufacturing jobs? Well, those wacky Bushites are at it again, redefining the universe to serve their own agenda. (I should say their own agendum, for they have never had but one: to make rich people richer.) The latest game being played by the rascals in power is to convince us that between 1998 and 2004, the U.S. enjoyed a net gain in wetlands by counting man-made ponds, such as water hazards on golf courses.

A new report by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service boasts of "a net gain of 191,750 wetland acres (77,630 ha) nationwide which equates to an average annual net gain of 32,000 acres (12,900 ha)." On its website, the USFWS happily explains that

The report details a smaller loss of natural vegetated wetlands than in previous periods and substantial acreage gains in wetlands that include man-made ponds such as water traps on golf courses recreational or decorative ponds in residential areas, and storm water retention ponds.

The report, itself, was forthright in admitting,

Without the increased pond acreage, wetland gains would not have surpassed wetland losses during the timeframe of this study. The creation of artificial freshwater ponds has played a major role in achieving wetland quantity objectives. The replacement of vegetated wetland areas with ponds represents a change in wetland classification. Some freshwater ponds would not be expected to provide the same range of wetland values and functions as a vegetated freshwater wetland.

In fact, the report details the losses as well as the "gains." The Association of State Wetland Managers gives a more coherent (and more somber) review of the net balance:

Unfortunately, the report's seemingly-good conclusion that the nation has achieved "no net loss of wetlands" is misleading. The "no net loss of wetlands" is largely due to the proliferation of ponds, lakes and other "deepwater habitats," as the report points out. These ponds include ornamental lakes for residential developments, stormwater detention ponds, wastewater treatment lagoons, aquaculture ponds and golf course water hazards.

… This is the first time ever that the study reported a net gain in water resources acreage and this is an important achievement. However, the significant increase in new pond acreage (700,000 acres, an 11% increase) accounts for this net gain by a magnitude of more than three fold. A closer evaluation of the report reveals a net loss of more than half a million acres of naturally occurring wetlands. For example, estuarine emergent wetlands (salt marshes) were reduced by 5,540 acres (0.9%, the same loss rate as reported between 1985-1997), freshwater emergent wetlands declined by 142,570 acres (0.5%), and freshwater shrub wetlands declined by 900,800 acres (4.9%) during the 6-year study time frame.
…
Why does this wetland/pond distinction matter? Natural wetlands have the capacity to provide multiple wetland functions and related benefits to society. Depending on the type of wetland and its location in the landscape, these services include water quality improvement, waterfowl and shorebird habitat, floodwater reduction, shoreline stabilization, fish habitat and other functions. In contrast, special purpose ponds and ornamental lakes that have little if any vegetation may provide limited wetland functions and services-most commonly stormwater retention-but cannot replace the many functions and valued social and economic services performed by natural wetlands.

An article in the Saint Petersburg Times cites additional doubts:

Environmentalists, who attacked the study for a month before its release, said it is a mistake to equate man-made ponds with natural swamps and marshes.

"You can build as many ponds as you want, it's not going to make up for what we're losing," said Julie Sibbing, a wetlands expert at the National Wildlife Federation.

Not even the federal agency in charge of protecting wetlands, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, considers such ponds to be a replacement for wetlands, and neither do the state agencies in charge of regulating wetland losses.

None of that is stopping the administration from spinning all of this as great progress in conserving our wetlands. The FWS report declares that "for the first time, net wetland gains, acquired through the contributions of restoration and creation activities, surpassed net wetland losses." Erstwhile Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, along with Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, cited the report in a press conference on March 30th, during which she said, " I'm pleased to complete my term as secretary of interior by announcing some good news."

One of the most indignant reactions to these semantic shenanigans came not from liberals or the MSM, but from—who else?—Field and Stream Magazine:

Researchers long ago established that natural wetlands such as marshes, swamps and prairie potholes are far more productive than even the best-designed artificial wetlands. And sharp-edged water bodies like water hazards, farm ponds, and even reservoirs offer very little for wildlife.
…
The boldness of Norton's claim was particularly galling given the Bush Administration's record on wetlands. President Bush, like other presidents before him, promised a policy of “no net loss” of wetlands, but his administration has consistently supported rollbacks of the Clean Water Act to satisfy industry and development.

Gale Norton confessed that "the overall state of our wetlands is still precarious," but asserted that "even ponds that are not a high quality of wetlands are better than not having wetlands." The Field and Stream folks saw through that:

Norton's announcement was likely an act of setting the table for more administration assaults on wetlands protections. It was probably no coincidence that three days earlier, the Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency proposed new regulations that encourage development of companies that build artificial wetlands used by industries that destroy the vital natural habitats. It's part of the wetlands mitigation banking concept--which gives companies permits to drain wetlands, as long as they produce “new” wetlands somewhere else.

So, while most experts agree that the overall increase in water acreage has limited benefits, they also agree that building ponds doesn’t replace natural wetlands. It's the old ketchup-is-a-vegetable trick, designed, in this case, to disguise unbridled development as conservation and plutolatry as environmentalism … and, in general, to disguise failure as success. Are they really fooling anyone at this point? Not David Letterman, who, the other night, quipped that the new water-hazard designation was all a part of the administration's program to "save America's endangered country clubs."

The FWS report, a "status and trends" report, was careful to qualify itself, saying,

This report does not draw conclusions regarding trends in the quality of the nation’s wetlands. The Status and Trends Study collects data on wetland acreage gains and losses, as it has for the past 50 years. However, it is timely to examine the quality, function, and condition of such wetland acreage. Such an examination will be undertaken by agencies participating in the President’s Wetlands Initiative.

Let's not be surprised if, as part of that initiative, the President tries to assert that the nation's supply of ketchup should be counted as wetlands.

[Links via Google search "water hazards" +wetlands]

[That's all, folks]