State regulations regarding wetlands decisions may be amended because of public opposition. The wetlands above are located along the Charles River in Boston.

Opposition to Gov. Deval Patrick’s proposal that would curb citizen appeals on state wetlands decisions has led the administration to reconsider the changes.

“The advocates’ voices have been heard loud and clear, and we are considering amending that provision because of the response we’ve received,” said Arleen O’Donnell, acting commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.

The controversy began earlier this year when O’Donnell joined Patrick and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles to unveil changes that they argued would improve the effectiveness of environmental regulations. The goal was to issue permits “at the speed of business,” the governor said.

But at a pair of recent public hearings, activists lined up to oppose at least one of the administration’s plans to streamline wetlands permitting. The most contentious amendment would end the ability of 10 or more residents to appeal to the Division of Administrative Law Appeals if they believe the DEP permit decision fails to protect wetlands.

“If DEP proceeds with these changes, it will make an uneven playing field even more uneven,” said Stash Horowitz, co-founder of the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, who testified against the proposal in Worcester last week. “Business interests seem to be running the governor’s agenda.”

Thomas Sciacca, a former Wayland Conservation Commission chairman, said he was a member of a citizen group that opposed the town’s plan to install artificial turf at an athletic field adjacent to wells and the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. The 3,600-acre sanctuary is comprised of freshwater wetlands that stretch along 12 miles of the Concord and Sudbury Rivers in MetroWest and serves as nesting and feeding habitat for wildlife.

“Some town officials were willing to trade football for drinking water,” he said. “Many of us did not believe that was a reasonable tradeoff. Our appeal to DALA resulted in major accommodations, including a new draining plan. That would not have happened without this right of appeal.”

‘Where Is the Fairness?’

Suzanne R. Bass, president of the Mystic River Watershed Association, said while she agrees that cases sometimes take too long, residents often need time to make their case.

“I know of one example where it took 17 months from the last hearing to get permitted, and that’s inexcusable,” she said. “But developers have all their lawyers, scientists and hydrologists lined up while citizens work in their spare time.”

Bass insisted that residents who participate in such appeals cases don’t do so lightly.

“It takes an incredible amount of work and lots of money must be raised to pay attorney and consultants,” she said. “These appeals are not frivolous.”

Kyla Bennett, director of New England Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, said she was shocked to learn that DEP needed a primer on wetlands.

“I never thought that I would find myself lecturing DEP on why wetlands are critical to citizens of the commonwealth,” she said.

Bennett questioned why any change was needed in the wetlands-appeal procedure. She noted that only 15 wetlands appeals were heard by DALA in 2005, while four were heard last year.

Stephen Kaiser, a member of the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, raised the issue of fairness. He noted that in the recent Chapter 91 case involving Northpoint, the proposed $2 billion mini-city in East Cambridge, residents who filed the lawsuit were outspent by the developer by a 10-1 margin.

“Where is the fairness in that?” he asked. “There are so many things stacked against citizens. DEP’s answer to the issue of fairness is to make it harder for citizens to appeal.”

But not everyone is opposed to the governor’s plan.

David Begelfer, chief executive officer of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, said NAIOP supports efforts to streamline what has become a very lengthy appeals process. He said that some people like the idea of slowing things even if they don’t win.

Begelfer rejected the suggestion that the same governor who campaigned on a platform of “citizen involvement” was trying to silence public opinion.

“Citizen engagement doesn’t mean that if you lack any basis for your concerns, then you’re free to veto a project,” he said. “If there’s a valid reason to oppose a decision that’s one thing, but there are cases where appeals have been rejected locally and consistently and that’s an abuse of the system.”

In the 1960s, Massachusetts became among the first states in the nation to legislate wetlands protections. The Wetlands Protection Act recognizes that wetlands are the people’s water resources, not just the developers’ private property, according to Clean Water Action, a national organization whose mission is to lobby for clean water and empower taxpayers to take charge of the environment’s future.

Wetlands filter clean drinking-water supplies, prevent flooding and storm damage, and support wildlife. Some compare them to tropical rainforests in their biological productivity. Since Colonial times, nearly a third of the commonwealth’s wetlands have been destroyed, according to environmental advocacy groups.

But during the announcement, the governor noted that some of the stalled appeals involve projects that serve the public good. One such project is the Hoosac Wind Farm, an electricity-generating plant in the Berkshires, he said. DEP had approved a permit for the project in 2004 but opponents filed an appeal of that permit. The case has been under review since February 2005, still awaiting a decision.

O’Donnell, the acting DEP commissioner, noted that there appears to be broad agreement on some of the proposed changes that would make the Bay State more economically competitive and get permits issued in 180 days.

“We took that charge seriously and discovered that wetlands appeals [was] one of four programs that were taking well over six months, with some taking as long as four years,” she said. “Everyone seems to agree that some of the wetlands permits, at one year or more, are taking way too long.”

O’Donnell disputed claims by activists that the appeals by 10 or more citizens to DALA would end if the governor’s proposal were enacted. Residents who are not abutters would have to demonstrate that they are “aggrieved persons,” she said.

But activists insist that it is difficult to demonstrate harm before the action causing such damage is done. “The legal hurdle of proving you may suffer an injury is quite high and would eliminate many people who would be harmed by the issuing of a wetlands permit,” said PEER’s Bennett.

Still, O’Donnell said DEP is trying to reduce the permitting timelines and minimize the number of frivolous appeals by raising the bar slightly for those eligible to file an appeal.

The deadline for public comment on the regulations ends today. DEP expects to issue new guidelines this fall.