Circle of Blue
  • Podcasts
  • Great Lakes
    • Fresh
    • Refresh
    • Harmful Algal Blooms
    • Water’s True Cost
    • Michigan’s Groundwater Emergency
  • Drying American West
  • Water Debt
  • WASH
  • WaterNews
    • WaterNews
      • The Daily Stream
      • Federal Water Tap
      • Fresh
      • Weekly Water Newsletter
      • HotSpots H2O
      • Special Reports
        • Water, Texas
        • Tapped Out
        • Legionnaires’
        • Fair Bluff
        • After Paradise Burned
        • Water Pricing
        • Water Affordability
        • Water Scarcity in India
        • Groundwater
        • Delhi Waits For Water
      • Convenings
  • Features
    •  
      • Toxic Terrain
      • The Biggest Dry: Arizona
      • Nebraska Nitrate Contamination
      • Lake Mead
      • Water and Financial Risks
      • California Drought
      • Septic Infrastructure in the U.S.
      • Stranded Assets
      • Cape Town
      • Flint Water Crisis
      • Australia
      • Hidden Waters, Dragons in the Deep
      • Himalayas
      • Designing Waters Future
      • Zeropolis
        • Big Cities, Little Water
      • Water and Climate
      • Unearthing Water Risks of The Global Mining Industry
      • Chennai
  • Choke Point
    • The World at a Choke Point
      • Choke Point: Australia
      • Choke Point: Tamil Nadu
      • Choke Point: South Africa
      • Choke Point: China
      • Choke Point: India
        • Chennai
      • Choke Point: Australia
      • Choke Point: Tehuacán Valley
      • Choke Point: U.S.
        • Choke Point: Index
          • California Central Valley
          • Great Lakes Algae
          • Ogallala Aquifer
          • Water Data
  • About
    • Fellowship
    • About Circle of Blue
    • Team Members
    • Board of Directors
    • Ethics and Sponsorship
    • Internships
    • Underwriters
    • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

A Patchwork of Differing State Laws to Protect Wetlands

Lester Graham, Michigan Radio – June 28, 2023

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision removed federal protections for many wetlands. The Great Lakes region has some state protections but they vary from state to state. But in a watershed like the Great Lakes basin, wetland protections are only as good as the state with the weakest laws.

The Sackett versus EPA case basically rules that if the wetland is directly connected by surface water to a lake or stream, it’s a federally protected part of what’s called the Waters of the U.S.   Otherwise, it’s not protected. 

That leaves it to each state to decide whether to and how to protect the wetlands that, for 50 years, were protected by the Clean Water Act.

Environmental groups have repeatedly noted that the Supreme Court did not base its decision on scientific evidence, but instead only on private property rights. Save

Ray Stewart is ambassador for the Ohio Wetlands Association. He stands on a preserve with two wetland areas. Both of them were federally protected, but a Supreme Court ruling removed protections from one of the wetland areas through a decision named Sackett v. EPA. Stewart wants Congress to pass better wetland protection laws. Photo: Lester Graham/Michigan Radio

On a pleasant day in Ohio, Ray Stewart was sitting on a bench at the Great Egret Marsh, a Nature Conservancy preserve next to Lake Erie. He’s the ambassador for the Ohio Wetlands Association. He was showing me a part of the wetland preserve connected to a lake harbor. It is still protected under the Clean Water Act.

“But if we look over our shoulder here, there is another marshy area that is part of this preserve. And it is it is totally isolated by an embankment surrounding it. But because it doesn’t have a surface connection, then it doesn’t fall under the new definition of Waters of the United States with this recent Sackett v. EPA,” he said.

The two wetlands are equally valuable in helping to filter out contaminants and reducing flooding. Like all wetlands, they’re also among the most productive ecosystems for the organisms at the bottom of the food web as well as for fish, waterfowl, and birds of prey such as bald eagles.

A 2020 National Wetland Inventory Map from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. States such as Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio have lost 90 percent of their wetlands due to agriculture and development.

The states, individually, can make laws stronger laws than the federal ones and some of them already have them. But they don’t all have the same level of protections for wetlands. The eight Great Lakes states are a good example. 

According to Earth Justice, Minnesota and New York have some of the strongest protections for wetlands in the nation.

Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have fairly strong protections but they’re all somewhat different. 

Michigan in particular will continue protecting wetlands as it has been. It’s had its own program since 1979 and in 1984 the EPA granted the state full authority to continue under state law. That’s rare. 

Illinois, again according to Earth Justice, has the weakest wetlands protections in the Great Lakes region. 

 “A state that’s doing a lot to protect its watershed, if it shares a watershed with another state that is not protecting its watershed, it’s going to likely have negative effects from pollution that’s coming from that other state,” said Jim Murphy, Director of Legal Advocacy at the National Wildlife Federation. 

He argued that state protections are not a substitute for uniform federal protections. 

He also said states are vulnerable to what’s called the ‘race to the bottom’ to attract economic development.

“When some development goes into the neighboring states, it has weaker protections and starts the narrative of ‘Boy, if we didn’t have these wetlands protections here, we could get that economic activity in our state.’” 

Business groups, developers, and farmers are celebrating the Sackett decision.

Brian Turmail is the VP of public affairs for the Associated General Contractors of America. He said the Supreme Court decision cleared up the chaotic way the wetland protections changed from one presidential administration to the next and he added each time it amounted to government overreach. 

“The answer isn’t for the executive branch to invent new authorities that Congress didn’t invest in them. The answer is, is for communities, for activists, for anyone who’s interested about particular wetlands, to work with state and local officials to put in place any additional protections they feel are needed on waters that aren’t federal Waters of the U.S.”

The American Farm Bureau Federation did not respond to requests for a comment. In this release, it indicates the Farm Bureau is pleased with the Supreme Court decision.

A great egret looking for its next meal. Wetlands are the beginning of life for fish, waterfowl, and many birds of prey such as the bald eagle and ospreys.Lester Graham/Michigan Radio

Back at the Great Egret Marsh, Ray Stewart said, to his mind, Congress needs to amend the Clean Water Act to make it clear that the wetlands near but separate from the Waters of the U.S. are still protected.

“There needs to be a watershed-wide -as a minimum- management of these systems, which is why it’s so important to have a federal program that can look at a broader, more comprehensive view.” 

The patchwork of state protections of wetlands is problematic because water doesn’t care about political boundaries. Even wetlands that are not directly connected by surface water with lakes, rivers, and streams, are often connected through groundwater or during floods. Those wetlands are also a buffer that can reduce flooding during the increasingly frequent intense rainstorms that are happening because of climate disruption. If those isolated wetlands near a lake or river are gone, flooding could be worse. And the effects on wildlife are incalculable.

Without protections, more of the small fraction of what’s left of wetlands in the nation could be damaged or destroyed with consequences that reach beyond state borders.

This story is part of a Great Lakes News Collaborative series investigating the region’s water pollution challenges. Called Refresh, the series explores the Clean Water Act’s shortcomings in the Great Lakes, and how the region can more completely address water pollution in the next 50 years.

The collaborative’s four newsrooms — Bridge Michigan, Circle of Blue, Great Lakes Now and Michigan Radio — are funded by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.

Related

Archives

Recent Posts

  • The Stream, December 6, 2023: As U.S. Airlines Consider Corn-Based Fuel, Groundwater Could Be Limiting Factor
  • Will Energy From Manure Help or Harm Water Quality in Michigan?
  • Federal Water Tap, December 4: EPA Proposes 10-Year Timeline to Remove Most Lead Pipes
  • The Stream, November 29, 2023: Heroic Llamas Revitalize Farmland in Peru, Where Glacial Melt Acidifies Water and Soil
  • Fresh, November 28, 2023: Proposed Land Swap in Wisconsin Could Set Harmful Precedent, Conservationists Say

Subscribe: Weekly Waternews

* indicates required
Please also subscribe me to the daily Stream
Please also subscribe me to the Federal Water Tap

© 2023 Circle of Blue – all rights reserved
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

Member of the Institute for Nonprofit News Donate to Circle of Blue
The Stream, June 28, 2023: In Climate-impacted Bangladesh, Residents Adapt to...Will Michigan’s Largest Water Provider Target Tiny City For Next Shutoffs...
Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

OKLearn more

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Accept settingsHide notification only
Make an impact this #GivingNewsDay
Journalism with this kind of impact is free to consume but costly to produce.
Support fact-based journalism with your tax-deductible donation
For a limited time, NewsMatch will match your gift, dollar for dollar
Support Independent Journalism
You have the power to inform the world's most important decisions
with your tax-deductible donation
 Share This
 Facebook
 Reddit
 LinkedIn
 Copy
 Email
 

Loading Comments...