Matching
Funds Could Be Key To Stopping Wetland Loss
Posted:
9/11/03
The U.S.
Congress acted on two pieces of environmental legislation
in 2000. One was the 20-year, $7.8 billion Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan in Florida, and the other was the 15-year,
$4.5 billion Conservation and Reinvestment Act targeted at
Louisiana.
The Everglades
program was funded. The one that would have benefited Louisiana
was not.
A new
report offers a side-by-side presentation of the similarities
and differences in Louisiana and Florida wetlands and conservation
programs. A major point made in the report is that Louisiana’s
wetlands washed away into the Gulf of Mexico while Florida’s
"lost wetlands" simply were converted to domestic
uses. One of the authors responsible for the report also emphasized
that state matching funds may be the key to getting federal
dollars to help fight Louisiana’s wetland losses.
The report,
"Coastal Louisiana and South Florida: A Comparative Wetland
Inventory," was released in August and is available here.
It was
written for the Coastal Wetland Planning and Preservation
Act with funding from the Louisiana Sea Grant College Program.
"What
we have is, in some ways, a case of working wetlands versus
preservation," said Dr. Rex Caffey, a Louisiana Sea Grant
Extension wetlands and coastal resources specialist with the
LSU AgCenter (one of the report’s authors).
Caffey
said that while half of the Everglades are in a national park,
most of Louisiana’s wetlands support commercial fisheries
and other private enterprises.
Caffey
and Mark Schexnayder, a Louisiana Sea Grant Extension economic
development and fisheries agent and the other author of the
report, point out that Florida’s lost wetlands have
mostly been converted for agricultural production.
"In
1999, Florida saw deterioration, and Louisiana saw disappearance,"
Caffey said of the time leading up to Congress considering
both pieces of legislation in 2000. "Florida’s
wetlands loss is conversion; Louisiana’s wetlands are
vanishing."
The report
from Caffey and Schexnayder points out many similarities between
Florida and Louisiana, including land area, water area and,
until 50 years ago, population.
At one
time, the Everglades and coastal Louisiana were both viewed
in a similar manner – as wilderness areas to be conquered
for settlement and commerce, according to the report.
Over the
200 years leading up the 1980s, both states lost between 50
percent and 55 percent of their wetlands. In the next 20 years,
Florida lost barely an additional 0.2 percent, while Louisiana
lost an additional 11 percent.
"Regulatory
actions combined with agricultural conservation have all but
halted wetland loss in the Everglades," Schexnayder said.
"But such policy has no effect in coastal Louisiana."
If current
loss rates continue, the Everglades could possibly lose an
additional 40 square miles of wetlands by 2050, Caffey said.
Louisiana is expected to lose that much in the next 18 months.
In July
the U.S. Senate passed an energy bill containing an authorization
of $195 million from oil and gas royalties for coastal restoration.
"The
final bill contains authorization for coastal impact assistance,
which could mean millions annually for Louisiana alone,"
Sen. Mary Landrieu said in July.
Caffey
said that while federal funding may be on the horizon, a state
match will likely be needed to get coastal restoration programs
moving in Louisiana. He said one reason Florida succeeded
in getting the Everglades restoration legislation passed was
because the state provided equal matching funds for the federal
project.
"Louisiana
has to come up with an ante," Caffey said. "We have
to come up with a match."
That
match, Caffey said, could come in the form of the first two
constitutional amendments on the Oct. 4 ballot.
"According
to the Coast 2050 report published in 1999, the state’s
current level of restoration funding is less than one-tenth
of what would be required to merely sustain the coastline
as it exists today," Caffey said. "Without a way
of generating a larger state match, Louisiana will not be
able to embark on the $14 billion restoration program needed
to fully address coastal land loss."
Amendment
1 could let the state use at least $35 million a year in mineral
settlement money and in other one-time revenues to match federal
dollars for coastal restoration, according to a column Gov.
Mike Foster published on the Internet in August. It also raises
the cap from $40 million to $500 million for unobligated funds
that can be deposited into the state’s Coastal Restoration
Fund.
Amendment
2 says the state can use up to 20 percent of the proceeds
it would get if it sells the remaining 40 percent of the tobacco
settlement for coastal restoration – but only if the
federal government matches the money. The governor said those
measures could mean up to $130 million for the state to use
as its share of the costs of coastal restoration efforts.
For more
information, contact Rex Caffey at (225)578-2393 or rcaffey@agcenter.lsu.edu
Back
to Main
