Redefining Water Protections: A Complex Debate
The Clean Water Act, a cornerstone of environmental protection since the 1970s, has long faced challenges due to its ambiguous scope regarding which waterways and wetlands are safeguarded. This legislative vagueness has led to numerous legal disputes over the years.
According to Stoner, a broader interpretation of the law could encompass more water resources under its protection. “If you went back to the members of Congress from 1972 and you said, ‘We just decided most of the waters in the United States are actually not protected by the Clean Water Act,’ I think they would be appalled,” she stated, reflecting on the intentions behind the original legislation.
Among those opposing the recent ruling is Crystal Brown, executive director of the Clean Water Action Council of Northeast Wisconsin. Having grown up amidst Wisconsin’s wetlands, Brown finds it perplexing why the scope of the Clean Water Act would be narrowed. “Our municipality has worked to restore some wetlands and native plantings to help mitigate flooding that’s happening in the urban setting,” she explained. “This (ruling) is totally counter to what we’re trying to do here as a community.”
While Wisconsin’s wetlands will largely remain protected due to state laws, Erin O’Brien of the Wisconsin Wetlands Association notes that states like Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota might see over 95% of their wetlands lose federal protection, as per the EPA’s estimates. O’Brien expressed concerns over the clarity of the new definition, fearing it may exceed what the Supreme Court required. “I personally have a lot of concerns that it’s not going to provide the clarity that a lot of landowners are asking for and need,” she said.
In Illinois, Robert Hirschfeld from Prairie Rivers Network highlighted the overwhelming response from groups keen to oppose the ruling. The organization, along with many others, submitted comments against the changes. “The response was immediate and, frankly, overwhelming in terms of the number of groups who wanted to sign on,” Hirschfeld noted, underscoring the public’s desire to protect water resources.
Support from Landowners
Conversely, the redefinition has garnered support from farm advocacy groups, such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Courtney Briggs of the Farm Bureau remarked on the relief the new ruling provides to landowners unsure about the protected status of their properties. She explained that the onus is now on the federal government to demonstrate that a property is protected, rather than on farmers to prove it is not.
“This means that if a farmer doesn’t think that the features on their property meet the new definition of relatively permanent or continuous surface connection, then they can move forward and use their property as they see fit,” Briggs explained. She also emphasized the importance of landowners adhering to regulations to avoid severe penalties associated with noncompliance. Briggs anticipates more guidance on implementing these changes will be forthcoming.
Despite a potential reduction in federal protections, Briggs noted that states have the ability to establish their own laws. Wisconsin is known for its robust environmental protections, and Illinois is expected to consider new measures in the upcoming legislative session. “States have the ability to go further than the federal government,” Briggs stated. “This is where elections matter, and you know, they have every right to expand their waters of the state.”
While the EPA has not announced a specific timeline for the final rule, Stoner from the Environmental Law & Policy Center anticipates potential legal challenges.
This story was produced in partnership with Harvest Public Media, a collaboration of public media newsrooms in the Midwest and Great Plains. It reports on food systems, agriculture, and rural issues.
