Latest news with #Sackett
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
It could soon become easier to build in Louisiana wetlands
Photo of cypress trees in the Atchafalaya River Basin. Environmental groups like the Atchafalaya Basinkeeper and Sierra Club worry a new bill will make it easier to develop in isolated wetland areas. (Elise Plunk/Louisiana Illuminator) In a stretch of wild land in Iberville Parish, a small dirt dam built across an out-of-the-way bayou is at the center of a lawsuit. Environmental advocates fear cases like this could become more common if a Louisiana proposal to redefine its wetlands becomes law. Opponents say this proposed change doesn't just open doors for mixed legal interpretations; it could also make it easier to erase valuable wetland habitat and build in flood-prone areas. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana in Baton Rouge two years ago by the environmental group Atchafalaya Basinkeeper and the Louisiana Crawfish Producers Association-West. They allege Benjamin Miller of Miller Hunting Club in Eunice illegally dammed Pat's Throat Bayou in 2021 to access hunting grounds on the other bank. The hunting club didn't get a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before Miller built the dam, according to the lawsuit. Instead, the plaintiffs claim the USACE granted a permit after the dam was illegally built. If the Louisiana Legislature approves a proposed update to its wetlands laws, environmentalists fear property owners and developers will argue that wetlands like these – illegally dammed off from a navigable body of water – shouldn't be protected under state or federal law. 'There will be lawsuits,' said Margie Vicknair-Pray, conservation coordinator for the Sierra Club Delta chapter. 'They're changing the definition, but that doesn't change reality.' Mirroring Sackett Pat's Throat Bayou is a window into how a national policy shift could affect Louisiana. A 2023 Supreme Court decision, Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, narrowed federal protection for wetlands. The case arose from an Idaho family who backfilled their property, which the EPA later determined to be protected wetlands. The Sacketts challenged that determination, arguing successfully their land did not connect to a navigable water body – known in federal law as Waters of the United States (WOTUS). Before Sackett, developers needed a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge or fill a wetland area protected under the federal Clean Water Act. The Sackett ruling also left uncertainty as to where navigable channels under WOTUS begin and end when it comes to wetlands, according to Mark Davis, director of the Tulane Center for Environmental Law. 'They didn't define exactly how that's going to play out … and people will agree and disagree where those lines are drawn,' Davis said. This means owners and developers might not need permits from the USACE to build in isolated wetland areas. The grey area has prompted states to step in and try to fill the regulatory gap with their own wetlands laws. Louisiana state Sen. 'Big Mike' Fesi, R-Houma, has sponsored Senate Bill 94 in response to the Sackett decision. His bill looks to redefine wetlands cut off by levees that break their connection to navigable water bodies as 'fastlands,' disqualifying them from federal protection. Fesi said in an interview his bill is meant to bring Louisiana law in line with the Sackett decision. 'We try calling everything wetlands just because it has a little water in it,' Fesi said. 'It's gotten way out of hand.' The Sackett ruling does not affect wetlands connected to navigable bodies of water, such as the Mississippi River, or tidal wetlands along Louisiana's coast. They would still have federal protection under the Clean Water Act. Wetlands with levees, either through 'current or future lawful construction,' are left more vulnerable in Fesi's proposal. The senator did not give a conclusive answer when asked what will happen to current wetlands cut off by future levees, saying his bill was intended to invite room for individual interpretation 'One size doesn't fit all,' he said. That's exactly the issue wetlands advocates have with Senate Bill 94 – the room for interperetation it leaves for how wetlands are defined. In the case of Pat's Throat Bayou, the argument was over whether wetlands connected to the navigable bayou were cut off legally or illegally when Miller built a dam, said Brennan Spoor, a member of Atchafalaya Basinkeepers. The group's mission is to protect and restore the swamps and waterways of the basin. 'The bill applies to all [levees and dams] that are currently existing or future ones that are lawfully constructed,' Spoor said. 'You could argue that the dam was lawfully constructed, and therefore the wetlands that they have destroyed since they built the dam were never wetlands at all,' he added, explaining that the bill tries to eliminate the need for a federal permit if the property owners want to dredge or fill the landscape. The exact language of the bill is also concerning to legal experts for the confusion they say it will create in the law. Fesi's bill changes the definition of wetlands under the Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, the program that regulates contamination released into surface waters. But Louisiana still needs to follow federal law for pollutants. 'The notion of a continuous surface connection is not really part of the rule for what a pollution discharge covers,' Davis said. 'If anything, it creates deeper confusion rather than clarification.' The Louisiana Senate approved Fesi's bill Tuesday in a 35-1 vote. It heads next to the governor for his signature. Flood concerns As legal arguments mount, environmental advocates say the stakes are high for Louisiana. Building in wetland areas eliminates valuable habitat and increases the risk of flooding in nearby communities, Vicknair-Pray said. 'People just want to build where they want to build, and they don't want to think of the long-term consequences' like habitat loss and flooding, she said. 'That water has to go somewhere. We need wetlands for that water to back up into.' When asked about flood concerns, Fesi said he thinks his bill would make it easier to construct and repair levees, aiding with much-needed flood control in some areas and 'promoting individual property rights' for those wanting to build in previously defined wetlands. 'Those aren't wetlands,' Fesi said, speaking about wetland areas surrounded by levees or cut off from bodies of water. The 2023 Louisiana Coastal Master Plan, a document outlining various coastal restoration and flood protection projects, recommends a combination of wetland resources and manmade levees for flood control. The same document also warns that overengineering rivers like the Mississippi can 'impact coastal wetlands and undermine their ability to replenish naturally.' 'The marsh behind a levee is going to die,' Vicknair-Pray said. Aside from just diminished natural flood control, she worries wildlife living in isolated wetland areas, including migrating ducks and native reptiles, will be put at risk with development encouraged under Fesi's legislation. 'We used to consider this Sportsman's Paradise,' she said. 'I don't think we can say that anymore.'
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
How Big Ag thwarted wetlands protections in Illinois and Iowa
Two years ago this week, the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett v. the Environmental Protection Agency significantly limited the agency's ability to use the 1972 Clean Water Act to safeguard the nation's wetlands from pollution and destruction. The decision determined that wetlands — waterlogged habitats that help filter water and sequester carbon — must be indistinguishable from larger bodies of water to be eligible for protection under the law. The move effectively eliminated federal protection for most freshwater wetlands in the United States. The Sackett decision shifted responsibility onto states to protect their wetlands from being demolished in the name of development. Although about half of all states already had their own wetland protection laws on the books, the other half had no state-level wetland protections, according to the Tulane Institute on Water Resources Law and Policy. A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists found that wetlands in Illinois, Iowa, and other states in the Upper Midwest are particularly vulnerable to overdevelopment due to weak statewide regulations. Illinois appears to be well positioned to protect its wetlands. It's a blue state with Democratic supermajorites in both state legislative chambers and a governor friendly to climate policy. But last year, a wetlands protection bill never made it to the General Assembly for a vote. And Illinois State Senator Laura Ellman, the primary sponsor of the bill, is pessimistic about pushing the same bill through the legislature this year. One major opponent stands in the way: the Illinois Farm Bureau. 'If the Farm Bureau is against it, a lot of legislators from downstate will be against it,' Ellman told Grist. 'I think a lot of planets would have to align before we could get this bill passed this session.' The Illinois Farm Bureau belongs to the American Farm Bureau Federation, a national organization that bills itself as the 'unified national voice of agriculture.' The federation, which boasts nearly 6 million members, is a conservative-leaning group that lobbies for policies that typically limit the government's ability to restrict farmers' activities. As such, the group often views wetland rules as overstepping — and its state chapters wield their influence to cut such measures short, according to lawmakers in Illinois and Iowa, two of the nation's largest agricultural producers. Since the Sackett decision, a handful of states have tried to fill in the gap in federal protections with mixed results. Only one state — Colorado — so far has succeeded in passing legislation restoring its wetlands protections to a pre-Sackett level. Illinois presents an interesting test case: Can agricultural states push wetlands protections through when conservative-leaning lobbying groups oppose regulation? Ellman's bill is 'definitely in a precarious situation this year,' said Jennifer Walling, who runs the Illinois Environmental Council, an organization that advances environmental policy statewide. 'This is something that makes so much sense. It should be bipartisan support, and yet it's getting a lot of challenges.' Wetlands are soggy, muddy interstitial ecosystems like swamps, marshes, and bogs that often bridge the gap between dry land and larger bodies of water. The unifying feature across these landscapes is that they're all some degree of waterlogged: The ground can be fully flooded or just saturated, and these conditions can vary seasonally. As a result of that water content, wetlands have specialized soils that store plenty of carbon, says Siobhan Fennessy, a professor at Kenyon College and wetland ecologist. Globally, inland wetlands occupy only about 6 percent of the Earth's land surface but are estimated to hold about 30 percent of the world's soil carbon. That's significant, since 'there's more carbon in soils globally than there is in the atmosphere,' Fennessy said. In the United States, wetlands account for less than 6 percent of the surface area of the lower 48 states, approximately half of what existed at the time of the American Revolution. In addition to storing carbon, these sparse habitats provide critical ecological functions like soaking up excessive rains to mitigate flood risks and recharging groundwater. But wetlands have been under attack by corporate interests and those who want fewer bureaucratic hurdles when developing land. The Sacketts, the Idaho couple who gave the 2023 Supreme Court decision its name, engaged in a 16-year legal battle against the EPA to build a lake home despite objections from the agency that doing so violated the Clean Water Act. The case concerned home building, but agricultural groups joined in the chorus of opposition. The Illinois Farm Bureau, alongside 19 other state Farm Bureaus, signed onto the American Farm Bureau Federation's amicus brief backing the plaintiffs' argument that the federal government was overstepping the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act by regulating wetlands not obviously connected to larger bodies of water. The Trump administration has stepped up efforts to reduce federal protections for waterways. As part of the EPA's so-called 'greatest day of deregulation' earlier this year, agency administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans to further limit the scope of the Clean Water Act by more narrowly defining 'waters of the United States.' The law firm that represented the Sacketts — Pacific Legal Foundation—is now suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture over a program known as Swampbuster, which gives farmers public funds in exchange for conserving wetlands on their land. Together, these developments have empowered agribusiness groups to 'take actions that are profoundly contrary to the public interest,' said Dani Replogle, a staff attorney of the Food and Water Watch, one of the defendants in the Swampbuster case. In Illinois, despite solid Democratic majorities in the state legislature, plans to enshrine wetland protections after the Sackett decision haven't gotten far. In February of this year, Illinois State Senator Laura Ellman introduced SB 2401, or the Wetlands Protection Act, to the state senate. It was her second time bringing the bill to the state legislature, following its failure to reach a vote last year. Ellman envisioned the measure as a response to the 2023 Supreme Court decision. It would create a process by which landowners would have to apply for and receive a permit before developing on wetlands. 'It was originally a wetlands and streams act,' Ellman told Grist. But in early conversations with the Illinois Farm Bureau, she received feedback that the way she defined streams in the bill was too vague. The group voiced concern that the bill was too far-reaching and placed an unfair burden on landowners. At that point, she decided, 'Okay, we're just going to focus on wetlands.' Even after the change, Ellman remembered the Illinois Farm Bureau 'turning on their jets': She and other lawmakers were flooded with calls urging them to oppose the wetland bill. She thinks the unified show of opposition reflects the organizing power of Illinois' nearly 100 county-level farm bureaus. The Illinois Farm Bureau has also wooed city and suburban legislators via its Adopt-A-Legislator program. 'People go down and spend the day touring farms and learning about agriculture,' said Illinois State Representative Anna Moeller. 'I know a lot of my colleagues really enjoy that.' As an example, the Menard County Farm Bureau posted photos on Facebook post last summer from a cookout in central Illinois hosted by Senate President Don Harmon and State Representative Camille Y. Lilly, both Chicago-area Democrats. According to Lilly's official Facebook account, she's hosting the cookout again later this summer. Chris Davis, director of state legislation for Illinois Farm Bureau, told Grist that Ellman's bill remains 'extraordinarily broad and vague in terms of what scope of wetlands it would regulate.' If the bill were to pass, he said it would be 'extremely difficult' to assess its impact on farmers — despite the bill exempting agriculture from the permitting process. Under the legislation, farmers would be able to perform activities like ranching, plowing, seeding, and harvesting and drain wetlands and other waterways in the process without a permit. Ellman said that other factors besides agricultural lobbying could also kneecap her measure. A November 2024 memo from Governor JB Pritzker's office directed all state agencies to oppose legislation that would add to Illinois' multibillion dollar budget shortfall. The state's department of natural resources estimated it will cost approximately $3 million to stand up the wetlands permitting program. The state of Illinois' budget for 2025 is more than $50 billion. Alex Gough, a press secretary for Pritzker, told Grist that the governor 'will carefully review this legislation, should it reach his desk.' But environmental advocates say preserving these ecosystems is paramount. 'We should be able to respond to rollbacks of the Clean Water Act that threaten our water quality here,' said Robert Hirschfeld, with the Illinois-based Prairie Rivers Network. Across the Mississippi River in Iowa, attempting to pass wetland protections hasn't been any easier. Today, only about 5 percent of Iowa's original wetlands still remain, according to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. New research from the Natural Resources Defense Council found that today, Iowa has about 630,000 acres of wetlands that likely fall under the Clean Water Act's current regulatory definitions. Still, the environmental organization determined that 18 to 97 percent of Iowan wetlands could be at risk of destruction in the aftermath of Sackett. In Iowa, the state Farm Bureau influenced the outcome of another bill that would have helped conserve certain wetlands, according to lawmakers. HSB 83, a measure introduced in January, would have made it easier for counties to finance projects reconnecting wetlands and floodplains and restoring winding bodies of water known as oxbow lakes as a means of mitigating flood risk. Typically, when counties borrow money by issuing bonds to do these kinds of major projects, voters must approve the debt. HSB 83 would have added wetland conservation to the list of essential county purposes for which leaders do not need to seek voter approval. The measure was introduced by State Representative Megan Jones, a Republican, whose district experienced severe flooding last summer. The bill never made it out of committee, and the legislative session ended earlier this month without it getting to a vote. Several organizations registered in support of the measure, according to the state legislature website, including the Nature Conservancy and the Iowa Farmers Union, an agricultural group that supports conservation efforts. But only one group registered in opposition to the bill, and that was the Iowa Farm Bureau. The organization 'had concerns that by allowing these projects, property taxes would increase on farmers,' said State Representative Adam Zabner, a Democrat who supported the bill. After the Iowa Farm Bureau voiced its opposition at a committee hearing, according to Zabner, it became clear the bill would not have the votes to pass. 'They were the group that sunk it.' The Iowa Farm Bureau did not respond to multiple requests for comment. 'It's just their policy,' said Pam Mackey-Taylor, a lobbyist who represents the Iowa chapter of the Sierra Club, which supported the bill. The Iowa Farm Bureau doesn't 'like any farmland being taken out of production. They don't like those kinds of heavy-handed regulations, so to speak, affecting private property.' She also pointed out that many state legislators in Iowa are farmers themselves, and may not have wanted to 'go that far' with the measure this year. Zabner added that the flood mitigation measure could come back in the next legislative session. But, he said, 'I am very skeptical, if the Farm Bureau continues to oppose it, that it could get done, unfortunately.' The Illinois and Iowa Farm Bureaus are especially influential, according to Austin Frerick, a fellow at the Thurman Arnold Project at Yale University who wrote the book Barons: Money, Power, and the Corruption of America's Food Industry. The Iowa Farm Bureau reported $1.71 billion in assets in 2023 and spends hundreds of thousands on lobbying efforts every year, according to public disclosures. 'Illinois and Iowa are in a league of their own,' said Frerick. Hirschfeld, from the Prairie Rivers Network, argued that agribusiness interests like the Farm Bureau have the effect of blocking progressive environmental policy. He compared Iowa and Illinois, specifically — two states with incredibly different politics, but equally active Farm Bureaus. 'Iowa can be all red, top to bottom,' he said. Illinois, on the other hand, has a 'democratic supermajority.' But 'when it comes to ag policy, what is the difference?' If Illinois' wetland bill fails again, it might confirm his fears: 'There's just not a difference.' This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How Big Ag thwarted wetlands protections in Illinois and Iowa on May 27, 2025.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Stripping federal protection for clean water harms just about everyone
Before Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, U.S. factories and cities could pipe their pollution directly into waterways. Rivers, including the Potomac in Washington, smelled of raw sewage and contained toxic chemicals. Ohio's Cuyahoga River was so contaminated, its oil slicks erupted in flames. That unchecked pollution didn't just harm the rivers and their ecosystems; it harmed the humans who relied on their water. The Clean Water Act established a federal framework "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." As an attorney and law professor, I've spent my career upholding these protections and teaching students about their legal and historical significance. That's why I'm deeply concerned about the federal government's new efforts to roll back those safeguards and the impact they'll have on human lives. Amid all the changes out of Washington, it can be easy to lose sight of not only which environmental policies and regulations are being rolled back, but also of who is affected. The reality is that communities already facing pollution and failing infrastructure can become even more vulnerable when federal protections are stripped away. Those laws are ultimately meant to protect the quality of the tap water people drink and the rivers they fish in, and in the long-term health of their neighborhoods. A few of the most pressing concerns in my view include the government's moves to narrow federal water protections, pause water infrastructure investments and retreat from environmental enforcement. Diminishing protection for U.S. wetlands In 2023, the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of "waters of the United States." In its decision in Sackett vs. Environmental Protection Agency, the court determined that only wetlands that maintained a physical surface connection to other federally protected waters qualified for protection under the Clean Water Act. Wetlands are important for water quality in many areas. They naturally filter pollution from water, reduce flooding in communities and help ensure that millions of Americans enjoy cleaner drinking water. The Clean Water Act limits what industries and farms can discharge or dump into those waterways considered "waters of the U.S." However, mapping by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that upward of 84%, or 70 million acres, of the nation's wetlands lacked protection after the ruling. The Sackett ruling also called into question the definition of "waters of the U.S." The Trump EPA, in announcing its plans to rewrite the definition in 2025, said it would make accelerating economic opportunity a priority by reducing "red tape" and costs for businesses. Statements from the administration suggest that officials want to loosen restrictions on industries discharging pollution and construction debris into wetlands. Pollution already harms wetlands along Florida's Gulf Coast, leading to fewer fish and degraded water quality. It also affects people whose jobs depend on healthy waterways for fishing, recreation and tourism. This marks a shift away from the federal government protecting wetlands for the role they play in public health and resilience. Instead, it prioritizes development and industry - even if that means more pollution. Pausing investment for rebuilding crumbling infrastructure Public water systems are also at risk. The Trump administration on its first full day in office froze at least $10 billion in federal water infrastructure funding. That included money for replacing lead pipes and building new water treatment plants, allocated under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Public water systems across the country have been falling into disrepair in recent decades due to aging and sometimes dangerous infrastructure, as cities with lead water pipes have discovered. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation's drinking water, stormwater and wastewater infrastructure grades of a C-minus, D and D-plus, respectively, in its 2025 Infrastructure Report Card. The group estimates that America's drinking water systems alone need more than $625 billion in investment over the next 20 years to reach a state of good repair. Congress passed the Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act to help pay for updating drinking water, wastewater and stormwater systems. That included replacing lead pipes and tackling water contamination, especially in the most vulnerable communities. Many of the same communities also have high poverty and unemployment rates and histories of racial segregation rooted in government discrimination. Where I live in Detroit, this need is especially clear. We have the fourth-highest number of lead service lines, connecting water mains to buildings, of any city in the country, and these pipes continue to put people at risk every day. Just an hour up the road, the Flint water crisis left a predominantly Black, working-class community to suffer the consequences of lead-contaminated water. These aren't abstract problems; they're happening right now, in real communities, to real people. Dropping lawsuits meant to stop pollution The Trump administration's decision to drop some environmental enforcement lawsuits filed by previous administrations is adding to the risks that communities face. The administration argues that these decisions are about reducing regulatory burdens -- dropping these lawsuits reduces costs for companies. However, stepping back from these lawsuits leaves the communities without a meaningful way to put an end to the long-standing harms of environmental pollution. Few communities have the resources to litigate against private polluters and must rely on regulatory agencies to sue on their behalf. Real lives affected by these changes What America is seeing now is more than a change in regulatory approach. It's a step back from decades of progress that made the nation's water safer and communities healthier. President Donald Trump talked repeatedly on the campaign trail about wanting clean air and clean water. However, the administration's moves to reduce protection for wetlands, freeze infrastructure investments and abandon environmental enforcement can have real consequences for both. At a time when so many systems are already under strain, it raises the question: What kind of commitment is the federal government really making to the future of clean water in America? Jeremy Orr is an adjunct professor of law at Michigan State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Stripping federal protection for clean water harms just about everyone, especially already vulnerable communities
Before Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, U.S. factories and cities could pipe their pollution directly into waterways. Rivers, including the Potomac in Washington, smelled of raw sewage and contained toxic chemicals. Ohio's Cuyahoga River was so contaminated, its oil slicks erupted in flames. That unchecked pollution didn't just harm the rivers and their ecosystems; it harmed the humans who relied on their water. The Clean Water Act established a federal framework 'to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.' As an attorney and law professor, I've spent my career upholding these protections and teaching students about their legal and historical significance. That's why I'm deeply concerned about the federal government's new efforts to roll back those safeguards and the impact they'll have on human lives. Amid all the changes out of Washington, it can be easy to lose sight of not only which environmental policies and regulations are being rolled back, but also of who is affected. The reality is that communities already facing pollution and failing infrastructure can become even more vulnerable when federal protections are stripped away. Those laws are ultimately meant to protect the quality of the tap water people drink and the rivers they fish in, and in the long-term health of their neighborhoods. A few of the most pressing concerns in my view include the government's moves to narrow federal water protections, pause water infrastructure investments and retreat from environmental enforcement. In 2023, the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of 'waters of the United States.' In its decision in Sackett vs. Environmental Protection Agency, the court determined that only wetlands that maintained a physical surface connection to other federally protected waters qualified for protection under the Clean Water Act. Wetlands are important for water quality in many areas. They naturally filter pollution from water, reduce flooding in communities and help ensure that millions of Americans enjoy cleaner drinking water. The Clean Water Act limits what industries and farms can discharge or dump into those waterways considered 'waters of the U.S.' However, mapping by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that upward of 84%, or 70 million acres, of the nation's wetlands lacked protection after the ruling. The Sackett ruling also called into question the definition of 'waters of the U.S.' The Trump EPA, in announcing its plans to rewrite the definition in 2025, said it would make accelerating economic opportunity a priority by reducing 'red tape' and costs for businesses. Statements from the administration suggest that officials want to loosen restrictions on industries discharging pollution and construction debris into wetlands. Pollution already harms wetlands along Florida's Gulf Coast, leading to fewer fish and degraded water quality. It also affects people whose jobs depend on healthy waterways for fishing, recreation and tourism. This marks a shift away from the federal government protecting wetlands for the role they play in public health and resilience. Instead, it prioritizes development and industry – even if that means more pollution. Public water systems are also at risk. The Trump administration on its first full day in office froze at least US$10 billion in federal water infrastructure funding. That included money for replacing lead pipes and building new water treatment plants, allocated under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Public water systems across the country have been falling into disrepair in recent decades due to aging and sometimes dangerous infrastructure, as cities with lead water pipes have discovered. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation's drinking water, stormwater and wastewater infrastructure grades of a C-minus, D and D-plus, respectively, in its 2025 Infrastructure Report Card. The group estimates that America's drinking water systems alone need more than $625 billion in investment over the next 20 years to reach a state of good repair. Congress passed the Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act to help pay for updating drinking water, wastewater and stormwater systems. That included replacing lead pipes and tackling water contamination, especially in the most vulnerable communities. Many of the same communities also have high poverty and unemployment rates and histories of racial segregation rooted in government discrimination. Where I live in Detroit, this need is especially clear. We have the fourth-highest number of lead service lines, connecting water mains to buildings, of any city in the country, and these pipes continue to put people at risk every day. Just an hour up the road, the Flint water crisis left a predominantly Black, working-class community to suffer the consequences of lead-contaminated water. These aren't abstract problems; they're happening right now, in real communities, to real people. The Trump administration's decision to drop from some environmental enforcement lawsuits filed by previous administrations is adding to the risks that communities face. The administration argues that these decisions are about reducing regulatory burdens – dropping these lawsuits reduces costs for companies. However, stepping back from these lawsuits leaves the communities without a meaningful way to put an end to the long-standing harms of environmental pollution. Few communities have the resources to litigate against private polluters and must rely on regulatory agencies to sue on their behalf. What America is seeing now is more than a change in regulatory approach. It's a step back from decades of progress that made the nation's water safer and communities healthier. President Donald Trump talked repeatedly on the campaign trail about wanting clean air and clean water. However, the administration's moves to reduce protection for wetlands, freeze infrastructure investments and abandon environmental enforcement can have real consequences for both. At a time when so many systems are already under strain, it raises the question: What kind of commitment is the federal government really making to the future of clean water in America? This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jeremy Orr, Michigan State University Read more: EPA must use the best available science − by law − but what does that mean? The US is losing wetlands at an accelerating rate − here's how the private sector can help protect these valuable resources Removing PFAS from public water systems will cost billions and take time – here are ways you can filter out harmful 'forever chemicals' at home Jeremy Orr works for Michigan State University College of Law and Earthjustice.
Associated Press
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Redefining WOTUS: What Businesses Need to Know
The definition of 'waters of the United States' (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act ( CWA ) has long been a point of legal contention and regulatory complexity. The CWA establishes federal jurisdiction over 'navigable waters,' which it defines as '…waters of the United States (WOTUS), including the territorial seas' (Section 502(7). Recent court decisions—most notably Sackett v. U.S. EPA —and subsequent agency actions have significantly shifted how WOTUS is interpreted and enforced. These changes are poised to influence permitting requirements, compliance expectations, and environmental planning for a range of industries. Below is a summary of the key developments and what they could mean for businesses and environmental professionals moving forward. WOTUS Before 2025 Sackett v. U.S. EPA (2023) concluded that the U.S. EPA's definitions and utilization of 'adjacent' and 'significant nexus' in the CWA was inconsistent with the structure of the Act. The court affirmed that the Rapanos v. United States (2006) plurality was correct - 'use of 'waters' encompasses only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water forming geographical features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.' The court agreed with narrowing non-navigable wetland coverage under the CWA to apply 'when wetlands have 'a continuous surface connection to bodies that are 'waters of the United States' in their own right, so that there is no clear demarcation between 'waters' and wetlands.'' In summary, the CWA gives the U.S. EPA authority over the navigable waters of the U.S. To be considered WOTUS, they must be permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water and have a continuous surface connection; and wetlands must be indistinguishable from adjacent, traditional WOTUS. The U.S. EPA no longer has authority over WOTUS/wetlands under the CWA through previous definitions of 'adjacent' or 'significant nexus'. What's Changing: March 2025 EPA Announcement Building on the Sackett decision, the U.S. EPA and the Department of the Army announced on March 12, 2025, that they will review the definition of WOTUS and written recommendations from the public. The CWA does not directly provide a definition for WOTUS; instead, it relies on the definition of 'navigable waters.'. The U.S. EPA committed to defining WOTUS in accordance with the Sackett v U.S. EPA ruling that 'waters' encompasses only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water forming streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes. U.S. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin stated, 'The previous Administration's definition of 'waters of the United States' placed unfair burdens on the American people and drove up the cost of doing business. Our goal is to protect America's water resources consistent with the law of the land while empowering American farmers, landowners, entrepreneurs, and families to help Power the Great American Comeback.' Stakeholders who care about how WOTUS is defined—particularly those whose operations intersect with wetlands, waterways, or regulated water use—should pay close attention to the public comment period. This is a key opportunity to provide input that could shape the final definition and influence future permitting and compliance requirements. What This Means for Clients While we can only speculate about client impacts until the U.S. EPA releases an initial draft of their WOTUS definition for comment, based on Zeldin's statements and the Sackett v U.S. EPA ruling, this will likely be a win for clients and reduce their overall permitting, compliance costs, and risk. However, as responsible environmental stewards, we should advise our clients to continue implementing all possible measures to protect sensitive receptors such as wetlands and waterways from environmental impacts, regardless of federal oversight Long-term environmental performance and public perception are still driven by broader sustainability goals and local regulatory frameworks. What Businesses Should Expect Business impacts have most likely already been realized, given that these decisions stem from the Sackett v U.S. EPA (2023) ruling. The primary services affected would be limited and primarily centralized around ecological assessments, audits, and construction planning and permitting. Any additional regulatory impacts are expected to be minimal for most businesses or may be balanced by new opportunities created by this ruling, especially since many compliance obligations are still driven by state and other federal regulations. Key Takeaways and Next Steps The evolving definition of WOTUS continues to reshape the regulatory landscape for water and wetland protections in the United States. While recent developments point toward reduced federal oversight, this does not eliminate the need for careful planning, sound environmental practices, and awareness of local requirements. Staying ahead of these regulatory shifts ensures that clients can manage risk effectively while continuing to meet sustainability goals. As more guidance is released, we'll continue to monitor the situation and help our clients navigate the path forward with confidence. In the meantime, we encourage clients to stay informed and participate in the public comment process, especially if proposed changes could directly impact their operations or development plans. Questions? Our team is happy to help. Reach out today to get answers! Visit 3BL Media to see more multimedia and stories from Antea Group
