Talk:No net loss policy in the United States

Please place feedback here

First off, great article. I like the way that you have everything formatted, which makes for an easy to read and understand article. I enjoyed seeing the different cases that have been presented on the topic and how the courts ruled on them. I also enjoyed the history of the No Net Loss Wetlands policy. However, I did notice a few problems.

1. Make sure that you are consistent with the capitalization of No Net Loss Wetlands. Some of the sections have it capitalized and others do not.
2. Define what CWA stands for before using it in the article (this was under the Clinton section). Also, is there a Wikipedia page about section 404? If there is linking it up would be a great idea so that people have a better idea of what section 404 is all about.
3. If possible I would like to see some more information under the definition section, since I think that it would allow for a better set up of some additional background information for people who have not taken Environmental Law here in SPEA.

Meghan.lyn.fischer (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Wetlands team,

First, I would say that I really like the framework of you Wikipedia article. It flows really well and provides the reader with a good basis of information. I’ve read what my pesticide team colleague Megan wrote and I agree with her suggestions. Also, I wanted to add that you should state why it is important for the United States to preserve wetlands. I’m not convinced that the general public has a good grasp on why wetlands are important to our society. This may just be a blurb about the benefits of wetlands with a link to another Wikipedia site or well defined section that’s incorporated into your site. (Shanwich (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)).

Hi, Your article looks really good, and is organized well. I think tables are a good way of presenting your information. Have you thought about explaining what happened to prompt the wetlands policy? I also agree that there should be some mention of the benefits of wetlands. Overall, it is well-developed and easy to follow. Lauschro (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

George Bush Sr. did not enter the presidency until January 20th 1989, so I'm confused on the phrasing of the article stating that the policy was adopted under his administration in 1988. 152.15.112.181 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Professor's comments

You have provided quite a number of good citations. Have you thought about how each will fit into your article? Some seem so technically oriented, that I am not sure you will need them.

I had hoped to see more of an outline at this point in the process. I encourage you to work up an outline as soon as possible so that you will have a direction in which to work.

The focus of the article is to be on policy related to wetlands. What are the laws, regulations, programs and such? Where did they come from? What support is there for the approaches and how well have they worked? What was the origin of the no-net-loss approach?

However, as we discussed in class, you have to understand the science, practices and impacts of the wetlands destruction and preservation before you can understand its regulation. You need a strategy to provide background information on wetlands themselves. That may mean editing and referencing existing materials in Wikipedia, or it may require you to build that material into your site (or a related cross-referenced site).

Try to make some rapid progress on this.

Enviro econ guy (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer comments

Hi, guys. I see you've constructed a very good framework for this policy. But one thing is not clear for me, and I believe it's pretty important to define it. The policy of no net loss wetlands is focusing on the area coverage of wetlands net loss controlling or the ecological functional service of wetlands net loss contrilling. Because in many conditions when wetlands functions have lost by environmental damage the land converages of wetlands are still existing. Thus, technically different approach has different policy based on my understanding. So maybe you guys could specify what's this policy is focusing on in the column of definition. Additionally, you've talked a lot about regulations and policies from the side of command and control, I wonder if there're marked based incentives done by governmnent, NGO, or communities for keeping no loss of wetlands to matching the state policy like no net loss wetlands. I'm looking forward to read your successful article. Rocky.liu (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This policy is not unique to the US, yet the article only talks about it in the US

Many other countries also have a "no net loss wetlands policy". For example, the wetlands policy of the state of New South Wales, Australia, incorporates the principle of "no net loss": "The principle of ‘no net loss’ should be implemented for developments" (see page 18). I think this article should be extended to cover other countries. Or possibly split into two articles, a global No net loss wetlands policy article giving an overview of such policies around the world, and then a No net loss wetlands policy (United States) sub-article covering the US situation in more detail. Mr248 (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Indiana University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Renaming the page

Hi all, I wanted to propose that the page should be renamed to "No net loss policy in the United States" and then an overall "No net loss" or "No net loss policy" page could be created to talk about worldwide NNL policies since it is used beyond just wetlands now? Manxshearwater (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Manxshearwater has created Draft:No net loss, which includes a By Country section. Please see my comments on the draft, which are supportive of renaming this article, and of accepting the draft but renaming it to No net loss environmental policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Manxshearwater (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

---

No net loss wetlands policy → No net loss policy in the United States – The page focuses only on the policy in the United States, even though these policies are now found worldwide and not necessarily just for wetlands. I think the page should be renamed 'No net loss policy in the United States' and then a separate page for 'No net loss policy' worldwide could be created because this article lacks a worldwide view. Manxshearwater (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a Draft:No net loss article in review, with By Country sections. It might be reasonable to move the existing article to No net loss policy in the United States and accept the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Sounds like a good plan! Manxshearwater (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deleted the old article prewrite from this talk page

This article got written in part on the talk page, and not all of it got moved into article-space (some got accidentally, I think, left behind), so I deleted that. If anyone wants to see it (there's a partially-sourced but thorough Programs section and a good bibliography), it's still available at this revision. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)