I not only have been representing the North Dakota Association of Soil Conservation Districts these past 20 months on Governor Schafer’s Wetlands Working Group, but I also represented the North Dakota Ag Coalition on former Governor Schafer’s Wetlands Management Committee back in the early 1990’s.

In your November 4th editorial, you stated the 1995 Legislature was wrong to repeal this state’s No Net Loss Wetlands Law. There were two main reasons all of agriculture was united behind its repeal and why the Legislature concurred. The law was more restrictive than the federal regulations - which we certainly don’t need - but the law was not and could not work in a reasonable and equable manner. Let me give you an example in the latter case. In times past when federal cost sharing was used in national programs to drain wetlands all these drained areas were tallied up and counted as lost or drained wetlands and entered in the debt column. Now however if government or cost share funds are used to reclaim or restore a wetland they could not be counted on the credit side of this accounting system. This was perceived by us farmers as being a bit too biased.

As I remember things, though, even with this double standard this state had a net increase in wetlands of some 6,000 acres in the last five years that no net loss was in effect or an average of 1,200 acres per year so that even in the early 1990s agriculture had already turned the corner on wetlands conservation. I certainly agree with you “that Swampbuster failed, not because it didn’t restore wetlands. It did. It was a dismal failure because it created a venomous anger among landowners that poisoned this attitude toward a worthy goal - wetlands restoration.”

I will further state that the “general public” was sold the package that “picture perfect” wetlands were a national treasure and should be preserved but then through regulation creep and over zealous enforcement the definition, was expanded to include every low area in our crop lands. Not only that but now the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is maintaining that we farmers can’t manipulate runoff or sheetwater within 100 feet of any wetlands and nobody is willing to state unequivocally where the absolute boundary of that wetlands is.

I will also take exception to your three primary benefits of wetlands. First, true wetlands have a highly impervious clay layer of soil (hydrophritic) underlying them and so they obviously cannot regenerate ground water or acquifers. Secondly, they may filter and help purify water in Minot’s sewer lagoons but the water in my wheat fields is not that bad. Thirdly, wetlands may help alleviate flooding but only if they are empty. When they are brim full as they were in the spring of 1997 flooding is inevitable, especially if you live in a flood plain.

In your November 7th article, you talked about flexibility for the farmer. All farm organizations in Governor Schafer’s Wetlands Working Group did agree that our farmers needed more flexibility in managing their resources and that they should be able to combine and consolidate wetlands as long as no water leaves their land. We also agreed that wetlands do not, in all cases, do all the grand and glorious things that the wetlands worshippers attribute to them.

North Dakota agricultlure is also solid in their opposition to perpetual easements as forever is a very long time, gives a windfall to the present steward of this land at the expense of future generations, which is generally only about 30-40 years in farming.

In your last editorial (November 23), you state that the Governor’s Wetlands Working Group should try to influence national policy and I certainly agree with that, but some participants cannot go against federal laws, regulations or executive policy so it’s extremely difficult and timely to stake out bold and realistic positions outside of present boundaries.

North Dakota agriculture is extremely skeptical about any mitigation schemes as we have trouble paying for our lands the first time let alone having to do it again. Present mitigation rules are affordable only to shopping centers, golf courses, and those few farmers who can switch from low value small grains to high value crops like potatoes, sugar beets, soybeans or corn, and then it takes years and years of daily hoop jumping. As far as the bank is concerned, instead of starting with 10,000 acres of new farm land, let’s start with the 11,384 acres that are already over mitigated in our present Garrison Diversion system including 1,707 acres of wetlands. Let’s try to walk before we try to run, and after we have mitigated these acres maybe us skeptics will have more confidence in the system. Since 1985, we have been promised that all the ills of Swampbuster would be cured with mitigation, but so far we are still waiting.

All we farmers are asking for is some semblance of a balance which we presently do not have. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is not worthy of the name “conservation” as all it is now is a wildlife propagation program at the expense of our rural infrastructure, in an era where we already have too many waterfowl for their summer habitat, and too many white deer for their winter habitat. What North Dakota needs to concentrate on is preserving its renewable agriculture revenue generating resources so that we can keep its 30,000 farmers on the land so that we can be friendly stewards of wildlife during our long winters.