Disastrous Supreme Court Ruling Underscores Importance of Wisconsin’s Wetland Protections
The U.S. Supreme Court has significantly weakened the Clean Water Act with Thursday’s Sackett vs. EPA ruling, and the implications for our nation’s waters are far-reaching. The Court removed countless wetlands from federal protection by ruling that wetlands only qualify for protection if they have a continuous surface water connection to another waterbody.
Feinauer notes that while this ruling does not directly change state wetland law, it still harms wetlands in our state.
“With reduced federal protection for wetlands within Wisconsin’s borders, we’ll lose the value of joint review by both federal and state officials of many wetland fill project permit requests. This could have an impact on larger projects like the proposed Line 5 oil pipeline reroute in Northern Wisconsin. Wisconsin also has exemptions under state law that allow filling of certain “non-federal” wetlands without a permit. So as the amount of federally-protected wetlands shrinks as a result of this decision, the size of that exemption grows, allowing more unpermitted destruction of state wetlands.
The Court’s misguided decision underscores how critical it is to protect Wisconsin’s wetlands laws, because the federal government may not be there as a backstop in the same way going forward.”
NOTE: This press release was submitted to Urban Milwaukee and was not written by an Urban Milwaukee writer. While it is believed to be reliable, Urban Milwaukee does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
Mentioned in This Press Release
Recent Press Releases by Clean Wisconsin
DNR issues Environmental Impact Statement for Line 5 pipeline
Sep 12th, 2024 by Clean WisconsinAgency will now decide whether to allow construction of the controversial pipeline
New EPA Power Plant Rules Will Save Lives in Wisconsin
Apr 25th, 2024 by Clean WisconsinNew standards will slash carbon, coal ash, mercury, contaminated wastewater and other toxic pollution from power plants.
Did anyone enter into evidence the behavior of water below and independent of surface connections, on both local system scales?
If not, why not?
Do over.
If so, and the presentation accurately and clearly described all the relevant facts, and the facts favored protection, then the court failed to to properly consider evidence.
Do over.
Why do we even allow state legislators to decide on an issue that is beyond their expertise? They have chosen to listen to the lobbyists who support their campaigns. Wetlands extend beyond state borders, impacting beyond legislative districts.