SALT LAKE CITY — The highest court recently ruled to strip federal agencies of authority over millions of acres of wetlands in Sackett v. EPA.
Nearly two decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act if they have a "significant nexus" to regulated waters.
By a 5-4 vote in late May, the court said wetlands can only be regulated under the Clean Water Act if they have a "continuous surface connection" to larger, regulated bodies of water.
“So that means that even though there might be wetlands that have very strong hydrological connections to bodies of water that we care a lot about that, they are not going to be covered because there's going to be soil in between them,” explained Professor Brigham Daniels, an expert in environmental law at the University of Utah.
He thinks this is concerning for our state.
“What that means is we're going to have dirtier water or we're going to have to pay to clean it. It means we're going to have more flooding and it means that we're going to have less wildlife and wildlife habitat by that," Daniels said.
Before the change, the regulation limited the ability of farmers, homebuilders and other developers to dig up or fill wetlands near rivers, lakes and streams.
“Basically, it just kind of pumps the brake a little bit as we're going out to develop them to make sure that all of the public values that are so important to all of us,” Daniels said. “Again, it’s water quality, flood control, wildlife habitat that those are taken into account as we are making development decisions.”
Now, he said those brakes won’t be in place.
Daniels added that he believes a lot more regulation is going to lie in the state’s hands and local environmental protection groups when it comes to wetland protection and regulation.
“I think it's incumbent on all of us to think how can we preserve these because, you know, they're the sponges when there's floods, they're the kidney of water systems when there's pollutants," he said.
