More than 100 Democrats in Congress federal protections for wetlands and streams. Lawmakers are responding to a Supreme Court ruling from earlier this year that gutted protections for many small waterways.
was a closely watched decision that sided with two Idaho landowners in their fight against federal regulators. It concluded that waters only fall under the Clean Water Act if they have a continuous surface connection to major lakes and rivers. This removed protections for many wetlands, waters separated by physical barriers, groundwater connections and intermittent streams.
The would return federal water definitions to the Reagan era. In a , Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said the Sackett v. EPA decision goes against the country鈥檚 environmental goals.
鈥淭he health of our waterways and the health of our wetlands and streams are inextricably linked,鈥� he said. 鈥淩emoving protection for wetlands is especially short-sighted as climate change continues to fuel more extreme weather events.鈥�
Many Republicans, meanwhile, applauded the Sackett ruling and said the Biden administration鈥檚 don鈥檛 conform with the decision enough.
Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) said she鈥檚 concerned that, without clearer, narrower definitions of federally protected waterways, more landowners in the Mountain West could be stuck in uncertain legal battles.
鈥淪ome of the examples pre-Sackett enforcement actions in Wyoming would, to the just naked eye of people with common sense, seem to be beyond the scope of the federal government,鈥� she said.
The Democrats鈥� bill is unlikely to pass a divided Congress, but debates over federally protected waters are likely to continue for months to come.
This story was produced by the Mountain West 暗黑爆料 Bureau, a collaboration between Wyoming Public Media, Nevada Public Radio, Boise State Public Radio in Idaho, KUNR in Nevada, KUNC in Colorado and KANW in New Mexico, with support from affiliate stations across the region. Funding for the Mountain West 暗黑爆料 Bureau is provided in part by the .