Attorney Gregory Broderick's recent rant ("Administration places environmentalists above the law," op-ed, Dec. 20) suggested that those who knowingly destroy wetlands should be excused.

     Mr. Gregory represents John Rapanos, who has been convicted of violating the Clean Water Act by intentionally filling wetlands on his property.

     Here are the facts of the case, according to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. John Rapanos owns land in Williams Township, Mich., land that once contained forested wetlands.

     Wanting to sell the property, Mr. Rapanos made plans beginning in 1988 to clear the trees from the land and to eradicate the wetlands that were on it. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources informed him that a wetlands permit would be necessary for development to begin.

     Mr. Rapanos hired a consultant, who found at least 49 acres of wetlands on his land. According to the appeals court ruling, after receiving the report, Mr. Rapanos asked the consultant to destroy any paper evidence of the wetlands on his property and then threatened to fire him and sue him if he did not do so.

     Spurning warnings from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Rapanos began destroying the wetlands on his property by filling them with earth and sand.

     He was charged and convicted of violating the Clean Water Act. The conviction was upheld in August, by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

     Now Mr. Rapanos' attorney would like to change the subject. He suggests that the Bush administration "caved" to environmental extremists when it announced recently that it is dropping plans for more permissive rules for filling wetlands.

     However, the loss of his client's appeal was probably more persuasive to this administration than any objections from environmentalists. The Justice Department was successful in tis prosecution of Mr. Rapanos because Congress has provided for broad protection of wetlands under the Clean Water Act.

     Like many who attempt to justify wetlands destruction in the name of private property rights, Mr. Broderick sets up a false dilemma -- the right of the individual to develop private property vs. the right of the community to protect its natural resources.

     But the problem is not so simple. Yes, reason should prevail in our efforts to protect the nation's waters. A "puddle" does not a wetland make. But more than 90 percent of Virginia's tidal and nontidal wetlands are in private hands.

     Strong laws and regulations are essential to prevent progressive loss of wetlands from both major commercial developments and small backyard projects by homeowners, many of whom are unaware of the environmental damage they may be causing.

     We need wetlands. They filter pollutants and protect our groundwater, rivers and creeks. They provide flood protection and habitat for commercially and recreationally important species of plants and animals.

     We cannot have a healthy Chesapeake Bay without wetlands. And we also need development. So we must strike a sustainable balance between private property rights and the community's right to clean water.

     A sustainable balance is one that will ensure clean water and a healthy environment for future generations of Americans, not just for ourselves. Sustainable balance can be achieved through comprehensive watershed planning, public education, effective regulation and enforcement of environmental laws.

     It is likely that the Rapanos case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. By upholding his conviction, the court will send a clear message that wetlands can and will be protected under the Clean Water Act.