G.A. Fuller, University of Regina
Farmers have been maximizing crop production to offset the increasing costs of land, machinery, fuel and farm chemicals. This has included the drainage and cultivation of wetlands and their peripheral vegetation. Present day farmers consider natural wetlands as a liability not only because of unrealized crop production but also because farming around them introduces inefficiencies into the farming operations. Farmers may also benefit from the cultivation of wetlands because grain quotas are generally based on cultivated acreages
The benefits that wetlands contribute to society are often not considered when decisions regarding drainage are made because drainage decisions are often based primarily on the production capability of an individual farm. Therefore, the drainage of wetlands continues because farmers generally own the lands that contain the wetlands and their objective is to produce agricultural products not wildlife or flood control. Increasing the cultivated acreage of a farm for reasonable drainage cost may be a sound farm business decision; however, what about the value of wetlands in providing:
The loss of flood control alone may be considerably greater than the benefits derived from the increased crop production to a region. Consequently, there are conflicting opinions regarding the drainage of wetlands.
The land use conflict between agricultural drainage and wetlands conservation involves physical, socioeconomic and political aspects. The economic benefits of wetlands drainage depend upon the boundaries used for the economic analysis. Some benefits of wetlands are not included in an economic analysis because they cannot be expressed in monetary terms. In the past farmers have borne the cost of wetlands but there ash been no mechanism for them to market the contribution their wetlands provide to society. On the other hand, society enjoyed benefits from wetlands, but there was not a suitable market mechanism for them to express their preference for the benefits from wetlands such as wildlife. Political problems with respect to drainage result from the fact that the surface water and wildlife using the water are public resources but they are generally located on private land. Governments have the conflicting responsibilities of improving the welfare of society and protecting the individual rights of farmers. To further complicate the matter, governments may be providing assistance for the drainage of wetlands and at the same time spending money to improve wildlife habitat.
Since it is society in general that enjoy benefits form wetlands, society should accept the financial responsibility of preserving these resources by reimbursing farmers for not destroying wetlands and their peripheral vegetation. This could be accomplished by a rebate of land taxes for retaining wetlands. A drainage tax or increase in land tax assessment could also be levied on wetlands that are drained. This would especially discourage the drainage and cultivation of marginal land. Unless a more regional approach to wetlands is adopted, future generations will not experience the many benefits of wetlands.