Despite the focus on climate change and carbon, one critical area of resource conservation is entirely off the administration’s radar screen. And it’s the one that determines the quality of all the others. Soil.
Past Presidents understood soil’s importance, including both Roosevelts, Truman and Eisenhower. But over time we turned the Soil Conservation Service into the Natural Resources Conservation Service and abandoned most of the programs assuring that America’s soils are conserved.
Soil is not dirt. It is the most extensive terrestrial ecosystem on the planet. Eminent biologist E.O. Wilson points out that there are more living creatures within the Earth’s soil than above it or in the oceans.
Soil is not a construction material. It is not that stuff sold at home improvement stores in plastic bags. Healthy soil sequesters carbon, cleanses pollutants from runoff, absorbs water and supports vegetation that cools the atmosphere.
Soil is not real estate. It is not valued by its location or distance from your house or urban center. Soil is the skin of the planet forming over centuries and millennia. Its value is in its ability to support life.
In considering how to spend scarce dollars on conservation and conservation “markets,” we must assess the future viability of our planet – and humans’ way of life. As we adjust tax codes, write regulations and create funds to engender specific actions, we must focus on what is most important for the future – waterfront development or clean water and prime agricultural soils?
As we review current regulatory programs, we must re-evaluate their purposes and consequences. Promoting the ruthless mining of vital soils for private gain and false conservation must be stopped. Continuing to allow the destruction of wetlands while pretending we can duplicate their complex functioning should cease. The Army Corps of Engineers, for one, has never seen a landscape that can’t be destroyed or reconstructed – just look at the Mississippi River.
One Bush and Congressional legacy that the Obama administration can reverse was hidden in Iraq funding bills. It is the Final Rule on Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (40 CFR Part 230). It makes the business of wetland mitigation banking the preferred regulatory action.
“By emphasizing its preference for mitigation banking, the new rule will likely create a bonanza of business for wetland mitigation bankers, who currently provide only one-third of the mitigation required, according to recent studies,” was a statement on the Ecosystem Marketplace website in response to the rule’s release.
Wetland banking is a regulatory program but, as it is being administered, the public is being told that the environment is being improved while creating a new speculative “market” with no effective oversight or control. The same “logic” that thought up sub-prime lending, synthetic leases, and bundling mortgages brought this approach to environmental regulation. But rather than just having to write-off bad debt and suffer higher taxes, we will impair the ability of future generations to feed themselves and live in a healthy, sustainable world. If the SEC, Treasury and Wall Street were unable to contain the financial mortgage disaster, how can we expect the EPA and Corps to regulate this short-sighted financial scheme?
The failure rate is significant, about 50 percent. Studies consistently conclude that mitigation does not adequately compensate for wetland losses, despite regulatory standards. These sites are routinely mined of soils to make construction easier, which only increases the likelihood of project failure while giving developers bonus income from sale of soil. While we talk about carbon emissions and sequestration, we are ignoring the resource that has been most effectively controlling carbon since the world began evolving. Soil.
The impact of this poor regulatory policy is staggering and irreversible in our lifetime. Consider the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina on our southern shores. Look at the continuing degradation of our nation’s waters. Think about the increased flooding we are experiencing in every state.
In America, under the policy of wetland mitigation, we are not only losing our vital wetlands to development, but the best agricultural soils are being mined to create compensatory mud holes – we are losing two irreplaceable natural resources and encouraging twice the destruction.
Soil is not dirt, and without it, there is no civilization.
6 Comments so far
Leave a comment
I believe you have misrepresented the success rate of mitigation banks. Mitigation Banks have been granted preference because they are the best form of compensatory mitigation, with the highest success rates.
Mitigation banks usually replace ecosystem impacts at ratios greater than acre for acre.
Avoidance should always be the preferred solution with regards to expected impacts to nature. When regulatory agencies deem impacts permitable, mitigation banks often provide the best solution.
Benefits that mitigation banks provide are:
Instead of doing piecemeal mitigation, banks consolidate smaller mitigation projects into larger more sustainable ecosystems.
Many mitigation banks are located adjacent to natural areas extending wildlife habitat corridors.
Banks set up conservation easements with trust funds to maintain the property in perpetuity.
Mitigation Banks consolidate oversight of numerous mitigation projects for strained regulatory agencies to monitor.
Mitigation Banks create and or restore land prior to impacts.
Decrease permitting time for developers.
Allow developers to maximize the potential project site.
Reduces risks of developers passing the burden on to the banker.
Banks provide cost reduction and certainty to those in need of mitigation.
Banks often provide higher quality environmental restoration and monitoring services than found in smaller mitigation projects.
Mitigation Banks are held to higher environmental standards than other forms of mitigation.
The Mitigation Banking Industry is young, but has proved itself to be a innovative and effective means for offsetting impacts to many various ecosystems across America.
Increased oversight and scrutiny is needed from regulatory agencies to insure that proper standards are met by all who perform mitigation.
Comment by Wetlandman February 14, 2009 @ 9:17 pmI’m not sure that a failure rate of 50% is “success,” and that rate of failure has been replicated in study after study.
Two wrongs still don’t make a right – the premise that killing a primary resource (soil) to create a fake resource to compensate for killing another primary resource (wetland) is sort of silly.
I’m not sure if I’m astounded or despairing at our collective chutzpah in thinking that we can “engineer” a wetland that actually replicates what nature took thousands of years to create. While you make interesting points, Wetlandman, most of your “benefits” list are hit or miss in that many (if not most) times, those benefits are not achieved.
Beyond the problems of science, engineering, and functionality, other problems have emerged as well.
Comment by raqistar February 18, 2009 @ 6:40 amhttp://www.fsu.edu/news/2006/03/29/wetland.banking/
Just passing by.Btw, your website have great content!
_________________________________
Comment by Mike March 1, 2009 @ 2:51 pmMaking Money $150 An Hour
I see your point in our conversation about building soil matts to transplant to depleted locations as a fix to destroyed growing areas. Science should be done on that subject and maybe one of your readers will respond. BUT closer to home …I have built several houses in my 62 years and only recently realized that I not only let excavators steal hundreds of sq. yards of sub soil, but also top soil from my various foundation sites.
Comment by william hall January 3, 2010 @ 4:37 pmI actually paid them to steal it. Then later paid them to bring it back and
spread it as a thin layer of top soil to grow grass which was fertilized with
toxic chemicals and I suffered run off erosion in almost every case. Stupid me. I then paid them to fix the run-off and bring me back some of my precious soil as fill.
Crafty men with shovels need to be reined in by better educated home owners. I have never seen anything on, This Old House program warning
home owners about their rights and responsibilities. I think you would agree that as much of that original and top soil should have stayed
on that lot, in that town and in that county to continue it’s evolution
into the future. I know the alternative could end up being a mountain of dirt in the corner of the yard, but think of the possibilities of hedge rows and landscaped teraces, etc. How do I get the message out to home owners to think first-dig after. On the surface this seems like a small issue, but multiplied it could easily rival Home Depot and their millions
of bags of dirt a year.
Thanks for sharing this useful information. Hope that you will continue doing useful article like this. I will be one of your loyal reader.
Comment by Norman January 7, 2010 @ 12:39 pmThis was a Great write up, I will bookmark this post in my Furl account. Have a good evening.
Comment by Wallace Alpers June 14, 2010 @ 4:31 am