# Clinton Wetlands policy. Puddles considered wetlands **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 19, 2012, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-wetlands-policy-puddles-considered-wetlands/619258 "2012-04-19T09:19:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-wetlands-policy-puddles-considered-wetlands/619258/1 "2012-04-19T09:19:40Z")
In the 90’s I heard that wetlands regulations went too far and some developers had to jump through hoops or couldn’t develop their land because things like mud puddles were considered wetlands. Did this really go on? I had a hard time Googling this, but I finally found a few cites that mention it. [Seattle Times, 1993](http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19931018&slug=1726686) > [@](#): > > “Right now, a wetland can mean anything from a small mud puddle to a pristine coastal wetland that should, of course, not be developed,” said J. Roger Glunt, president of the National Association of Home Builders. [PRI show “Living on Earth” transcript from 1997](http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=97-P13-00001&segmentID=1) > [@](#): > > FREEMAN: This is a fascinating issue because when you talk to members about environmental issues, one of the issues that always comes up is the issue of wetlands. And it comes up in the context of Federal regulators being, sort of interpreting environmental laws in a kind of absurd way. You hear about puddles that people call wetlands. [House committe on merch](http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/united-states-congress-house-committee-on-merch/the-administrations-new-wetlands-policy--hearing-before-the-subcommittee-on-en-tin/page-4-the-administrations-new-wetlands-policy--hearing-before-the-subcommittee-on-en-tin.shtml) > [@](#): > > The current system treats a mud puddle in the middle of a farmers field the same as it > does the Florida Everglades. This just doesn’t make regulatory sense and is very > burdensome on the owners of private property. On the one hand, it sounds absurd. On the other hand, our government does absurd things sometimes. On my third hand… Oh, TMI. Anyway, were there any documented cases, or something more concrete than just stories, of mud puddles holding up development? ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-wetlands-policy-puddles-considered-wetlands/619258/2 "2012-04-19T10:26:38Z")
[Any such policies were rescinded under the subsequent administration.](http://www.theonion.com/articles/jenna-bushs-federally-protected-wetlands-now-open,8879/) ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-wetlands-policy-puddles-considered-wetlands/619258/3 "2012-04-19T10:29:05Z")
The first reply to a GQ question is a link to an Onion article. Uhm, OK. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-wetlands-policy-puddles-considered-wetlands/619258/4 "2012-04-19T11:01:34Z")
This was also in the news recently: [Supreme Court allows Idaho couple to challenge EPA on wetlands ruling](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-allows-idaho-couple-to-challenge-epa-on-wetlands-ruling/2012/03/21/gIQAFgdsRS_story.html) Case background: > [@](#): > > The Sacketts want to build a home on a 0.63-acre lot that they bought for $23,000 near pristine Priest Lake in the Idaho panhandle. But after three days in which the couple brought in fill dirt and prepared for construction in 2007, officials from the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ordered the activity stopped and said they suspected that the land contained wetlands. > > Months later, the agency sent the Sacketts a compliance order that said the lot must be restored as wetlands before the couple could apply for a building permit. The government acknowledged that fines for failure to comply with the order could be as much as $75,000 a day. > > The question for the justices was whether the couple had a right at that point to appear before a judge and contest the agency’s contention that their land contained wetlands subject to the Clean Water Act. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-wetlands-policy-puddles-considered-wetlands/619258/5 "2012-04-19T13:47:35Z")
As I recall (and it’s been almost 20 years) a piece of land that was wet year-round could be classed as a “wetland” regardless of size. Of course there were other criteria that had to be met (what was the source of the moisture, etc.), but the absence of a minimum size requirement led to the “mud puddle” criticism. ---
**Author:** ![Twoflower](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/twoflower/32/22_2.png) [@Twoflower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twoflower)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-wetlands-policy-puddles-considered-wetlands/619258/6 "2012-04-19T14:07:21Z")
“Puddle” is the derogatory term for [vernal pools](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernal_pool), which are actually valuable habitat for some very rare species. It’s true that there’s no minimum size for a wetland, but the legal definition does require that an area be sufficiently wet that the soil and plant life have adapted to wet conditions. An actual mud puddle would **not** qualify. Wetland protection was written into the Clean Water Act in the 70s, and the field manual for how to identify a wetland was published by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1987. Clinton had nothing to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![blondebear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blondebear/32/1022_2.png) [@blondebear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blondebear)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-wetlands-policy-puddles-considered-wetlands/619258/7 "2012-04-19T14:31:35Z")
Vernal Pools was the first thing I thought of. I can see how they might be dismissed as ephemeral puddles. but they’re pretty amazing. Growing up in San Diego, the pools were fascinating things where life seemed to spring out of nowhere after a spring rain. There are only a few places to see undisturbed vernal pools in SoCal now ([Santa Rosa Plateau](http://laist.com/2012/02/19/murrietas_santa_rosa_plateau_ecolog.php)). I guess they’re something that “nobody” will miss…until they’re all gone for good. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-wetlands-policy-puddles-considered-wetlands/619258/8 "2012-04-19T14:32:46Z")
[Here](http://www.wetlands.com/regs/tlpge02e.htm) is the US Army Corps of Engineers’ manual for delineating a wetland. It is a complicated evaluation of the type of vegetation, the type of soil, and the patterns in which water is present.