Most real estate developers will tell you the toughest part of the job isn't putting deals together. Rather, it's making sure the deal satisfies an endless raft of ever-changing government regulations.

BRAD NETTLES/STAFF John Templeton, co-founder of the S.C. Landowners Association, kneels next to a puddle that is considered an isolated wetland.

Developers grit their teeth and, in calmer moments, refer to this as "jumping through hoops."

In the Lowcountry, those hoops have grown in number in recent years as municipalities and county governments have enacted policies that, for example, reduce building permit allocation rates or expand minimum lot-size requirements. These rules are designed to slow the speed of growth in the region.

Rarely are such regulations dropped from the books, and rarely do the developers believe they're cut any breaks.

The exception, it now seems, is when it comes to development in freshwater, or so-called isolated, wetlands.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled two years ago that the federal government had no authority to regulate these wetlands, defined as mostly swamps and bogs that have no surface channel connecting them to a larger body of water.

Last month, the Bush administration issued new guidelines that effectively left it to state governments to manage the question of how best to deal with isolated wetlands.

According to the U.S. Department of Natural Resources, there are more than 300,000 acres of such wetlands in South Carolina, including about 34,000 acres in the Charleston area. Isolated wetlands represent nearly one-tenth of all wetlands across the state.

As a result of the high court ruling and the new administration guidelines, developers no longer need a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to fill an isolated wetland. Applying for those permits in the past meant notifying the state, which would tend to do a review as well.

BRAD NETTLES/STAFF< This isolated, freshwater wetland area remains protected by environmental laws, though some believe may be more vulnerable to development under new Bush administration rules.

Now, according to critics, state regulators may never know if an isolated wetland is about to be transformed into the next sprawling development, at least not before it's too late.

Not surprisingly, developers and property rights advocates have lauded the changes.

"It's just common sense," said John Cone, executive director of the Home Builders Association of South Carolina. "Somebody shouldn't have to go to the federal government to get a permit to fill a puddle of water in his back yard. We've spent far too much time looking at every ... drainage ditch in a field."

The protections extending to freshwater wetlands were a case of "overkill," said Charleston real estate broker John Templeton, co-founder of the South Carolina Landowners Association.

"Wetlands are overrated for what their function is. Not all wetlands are pristine swamps," he said. "In some cases, people have taken topsoil off their property and water collected there. I had a project in Mount Pleasant held up for three years because of a situation like that. It's ridiculous."

Environmentalists, meanwhile, say the changes have dealt a serious blow to efforts to protect isolated wetlands. These areas, they say, are important in helping to prevent flooding and in extracting pollution from water supplies.

"Some (developers) see it as a green light to fill in wetlands," said Prescott Brownell of the National Marine Fisheries Service in South Carolina. "There is serious reason to be concerned. We are already seeing lost production in our estuaries and a decline in our water quality."

Brownell cited the Hamlin Sound/Bulls Bay area east of the Cooper River as a place that has been hurt by wetlands "filling" off U.S. Highway 17 in Mount Pleasant. He said shellfish production there has almost disappeared.

How well-founded are these concerns?

Officials at the state Department of Health and Environmental Control and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said they are unaware of any rush by developers to take advantage of the changes. However, they say that as word spreads, the risk is sure to rise.

As a result, DHEC is drafting an amendment to the state's water quality rules that would require developers to obtain permits through the state to fill any isolated wetlands. That legislation likely won't be introduced until next year, said Sally Knowles, assistant chief of DHEC's Bureau of Water.

BRAD NETTLES/STAFF Even this puddle is considered a wetland, but developers hold it's no more than a muddy hole.

Even without those additional rules in place, DHEC last week was able to win an agreement from developers in Beaufort County requiring them to preserve about a tenth of the isolated wetlands where they plan a 400-home project.

Groups like the Sierra Club aren't happy that any isolated wetlands will be transformed into another housing subdivision.

Nancy Vinson of the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, a non-profit conservation organization, isn't certain DHEC will be able to do much to control development in isolated wetlands.

"The state is taking small steps in the right direction, but they're going against a powerful lobby with Realtors and developers who want the right to build wherever they want regardless of the consequences," she said.

Vinson said she expects public awareness of the issue to climb in the coming years as the state emerges from a lengthy drought. Rains will accumulate in areas that had been wetlands and will cause flooding, she said.

"It costs us more in the long run if we destroy wetlands," she said.

Nobody believes developers want to blacktop every last wetland around.

They couldn't do so even if they wanted, because much of these areas remain protected by other regulations, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Endangered Species Act.

But developers and builders are certain to look at parcels where, until now, construction was prohibited.

"This issue is about reducing the unnecessary burden and expense that these regulations put on developers, engineers and consumers," said Cone.

One of the biggest criticisms that developers have of wetlands rules is that they lead to higher home prices. That's partly because designated wetlands require buffers - no-build zones along the perimeter - which can take up a lot of space in a planned community.

A developer might plan for 200 homes on a particular piece of property, but wetland buffers give him room to build just 170 homes. The developer then builds a pricier product to make up the difference.

Delays in permitting also spur developers to jack up home prices. It's often the only way they can recover their losses.

In Columbia, "If you increase the cost of a starter home by $1,000, you put that home out of the reach of 950 families," Cone said. "Affordability is a huge issue in this state that can't be dismissed."

On the other hand, developers have come to use wetlands as a marketing tool.

At Jamestowne Village, a new neighborhood on James Island where homes start at about $150,000, homes on marsh-front lots command an extra $4,000-$5,000.

"The marsh lots were snapped up quickly," said Will Jenkinson of Prudential Carolina Real Estate's Charleston Home Team. "Wetlands are a big draw for buyers."

Jenkinson said homes that front wetlands typically appreciate better than homes on interior lots, something else that buyers like.

Geoff Graham, a partner in I'On Co., which is developing I'On in Mount Pleasant, said wetlands are viewed as a "resource" in the neo-traditional community. The development includes many acres of creeks, marsh, ponds and a man-made bird sanctuary called The Rookery.

Homes have been built along the perimeter of The Rookery behind a heavily wooded buffer. Each home sold quickly, fetching more than $300,000 apiece.

"Buyers are more aware of the environment these days," Graham said. "And more and more developers are beginning to feel like active stewards (of the environment)."

Still, even Graham believes that some of the regulations regarding wetlands have gotten out of hand.

"Some of the guidelines are wasteful," he said. "Charleston would never have been built under the current regulations because it was all once wetlands.

"There needs to be more flexibility. You don't want to leave a developer with no way to answer a problem," he said.

Cone said he hopes the state might someday adopt a classification system whereby wetlands would be given a rating, something along the lines of "most important" to "least important." Such a system, he said, would help spare wetlands that really deserve to be protected.

"I'm optimistic they'll find a middle ground between what protects the environment and what protects property rights," he said.