Watershed moment: Supreme Court case puts our wetlands, water quality at stake
Amosaic of springs, streams and rivers funnels teacolored water south from Kissimmee to Lake Okeechobee, flowing through a tangle canals, dikes and levees toward the Florida Everglades.
The subtropical expanse of sawgrass marsh and wetland wilderness is a national treasure, a delicate ecosystem that’s home to nine distinct habitats that support fish, plants and wildlife, including rare and endangered species.
Harmful nutrient runoff also flows into the watershed, fueling outbreaks of toxic blue-green algae and red tide — both dangerous environmental hazards that would be even more prevalent if not for the protections of the Clean Water Act.
Those protections are being jeopardized like never before.
The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing arguments in a case that could dramatically weaken federal protections for water bodies now covered by the Clean Water Act. From Florida’s Everglades to Montana’s Tongue River Basin and wetlands large and small in between, the stakes for our nation’s most precious natural resource are astronomical.
The question before the high court in Sackett vs. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) centers around how wetlands should be defined under the Clean Water Act. The case stems from a dispute over whether an Idaho couple can build a home on their land, which the EPA argues contains a federally protected wetland within 300 feet of a navigable lake. The Sacketts, in a legal battle spanning 15 years, argue the wetland is not subject to EPA regulation because it is not connected by surface waters to the lake, therefore it does not merit protection under the Act.
If the petitioners prevail, more than half of wetlands in the United States would be in jeopardy. Affording these waters less protection would devastate fish and wildlife habitats, potentially threaten drinking-water supplies and compromise the ecosystems of countless rivers, bays, lakes, streams and other waterways.
Runoff pollutants from farms, industry and urban development would create a perfect storm of waterquality degradation and an explosion of toxic algal blooms, threatening lives and livelihoods.
Wetlands provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife; they filter nutrients, disperse sediment, and lessen flooding impacts. According to the EPA, just one acre of wetland can store about 1 million gallons of water. Wetlands are also amazing carbon sinks, helping to protect our planet from the primary greenhouse gas fueling climate change.
But consider: Every year, about 1% of the world’s wetlands are lost to pollution, development, agricultural use or other human activities; and when wetlands are degraded, the carbon they once stored is released back into the atmosphere, exacerbating global warming. The draining of peatlands alone accounts for about 5% of global CO2 emissions.
The point is, we must protect wetlands if we want our planet to have a fighting chance. Removing federal protections would leave it up to states to safeguard wetlands. That’s a scary prospect given the anemic patchwork of water-protection laws existing from state to state.
One analysis by the
Izaak Walton League found 32 states have weaker water protections in place than are required by the Clean Water Act. And not even half of states have their own permitting programs for freshwater wetlands. In fact, it was states’ failure to control pollution that made the need for the Clean Water Act evident in the first place. We need more protection, not less.
In December, Everglades National Park marked its 75th anniversary. Let’s hope we can celebrate knowing the iconic River of Grass and other water bodies will be protected and preserved for generations to come. The Supreme Court must deny this assault on our most precious natural resource.