About Wetlands in the U.S.A. People enjoy a famous soup (SHE-CRAB SOUP) in North Carolina because the days of the regional so

About Wetlands in the U.S.A.
   Good afternoon, everyone. First I would like to thank you for coming to this evening’s meeting of the Environmental Association. I’m Sally Deneen and I’d like to tell you about what’s happening in our area.
   In North Carolina there is a famous soup, SHE-CRAB SOUP. It arrives at restaurant tables on North Carolina’s Outer Bank as a rich, sweet concoction, delighting tourists and new residents whose cars are marked by license plates from their home states: Florida, Ohio, and New York. As the ocean winds sweep away the day-to-day worries of visitors relaxing on the beach, however, scientist Doug Rader realizes that the days of the regional soup may be getting fewer and fewer. It’s simple: No wetlands, no seafood.
   In California, almost all of the freshwater marshes are gone. Half of the marshes that are created by the regular tides of the ocean have been destroyed, while others have been transformed into sad, sunken farmlands. From the Gulf of Mexico’s salt marshes to North Dakota’s "prairie potholes", America’s wetlands are disappearing rapidly. What is the rate of loss of wetlands? An acre a minute.
   California has lost the greatest percentage of wetlands (91 percent), but 21 other states have paved new roads over, turned into housing areas or tilled into farmland at least half of their original wetlands. Fast-growing Florida has filled in the largest area  area bigger than all of Massachusetts, Delaware, and Rhode Island combined. Add the entire land size of California to that, and you can picture the amount of wetlands lost since the 18th Century.
   In cold, hard, economic terms, each acre of wetland is worth 58 times more money than an acre of ocean in the benefits it provides, according to Science Magazine. Wetlands act like sponges: the porous, jet-black peat soil found in wetlands helps soak up heavy rains and melting snow that otherwise may flood suburban yards. Wetlands also function like a part of our body, the kidney; filtering out dirt, chemicals, pesticides, and fertilizers before these hazardous materials reach our lakes and streams. Without wetlands, all of the dirt floating in water that is normally stabilized in a wetland is released into the water smothering fish-spawning areas. And fertilizers that are no longer captured and stored keep mixing into our rivers to kill prized fish sought by professional fishermen.
   Some of these wetlands also serve as large water-storage areas, allowing people to later enjoy these waters for iced tea and showers. And wetlands are a smorgasbord for frogs and migratory birds, and home to America’s ducks. According to the National Audubon Society, wetlands compare to tropical rainforests in the diversity of species they support.
   Yet which is more valuable to humans? According to Science, an acre of tropical forest is worth $817 for its ecosystem benefits. An acre of Open Ocean is worth $103. An acre of wetlands: $6,017. Yet they continue to vanish.
   So why is this happening? In its simplest form, the threats to wetlands seem to boil down to a curious circle. People need a place to live, work, shop. They look for affordable, attractive choices which may be in former wetlands. Developers build homes where demand indicates people want to live. So more people move into new ranch houses in the former wetlands. More builders build there. Soon, you have a suburb where herons once stood like statues, waiting silently for a meal to float by.
   What can we do? At any time, we can convince people to stop buying homes or doing business in former wetlands. We can encourage developers and businesses to stay in centralized cities. Or we can get the government to stop developers from building in wetlands  that would force homebuyers and businesses to look elsewhere. A first step for this would be that government agencies could stop granting permits to builders to develop homes on wetlands.
   So, maybe the folks in Washington, D.C. can stop the cycle. But don’t bet on it. That city itself is the site of a former wetland.
   The answer is up to us, to you and me. We need to change how we live. We need to choose not to move into that new development that was once a wetland. And we need to talk to our friends. These friends will talk to their friends. We need to raise awareness of this issue. And whenever we can, we need to get on the news, make a scene, protesting the destruction of wetlands when we see it. I’m not saying we should chain ourselves to mud. But we need to go directly to the source, the companies, the builders, the developers, and let them know how we feel. And we need to make them realize the value of the land they are destroying.
   The only solution, therefore, is an increase in public opinion in favor of protecting wetlands. Then the builders will listen, and then the government will listen. Without us, and without us changing our lives, there is truly no help for the wetlands.