Supreme Court Ruling Jeopardizes Wetland Protection

rick.savage • June 1, 2023

Dear Wetland Supporters:


I have bad news to share with you. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Sackett vs. the EPA has resulted in condemning many wetlands to unprotected status under the Clean Water Act. The details of the Sackett case are not important, but what the Supreme Court did was essentially rewrite the clean Water Act in a 5-4 decision with the descending opinions being shocked at what was done by the majority.


Loss of Federal Wetland Protection

The Sackett case has drawn upon the Justice Scalia opinion of the 2006 Rapanos vs. United States case which wanted to require more visual evidence of wetlands being connected to a navigable stream or river. The Rapanos case ended with a 4-1-4 decision with Justice Kennedy writing the Significant Nexus opinion to deal with Isolated wetlands, so the Justice Scalia opinion never took hold. But the Supreme Court ruling on the Sackett case has greatly narrowed wetland protection requiring visual evidence: If you don’t see water, how do you know it is a wetland (a jurisdictional wetland); if you see water, but the water does not connect to a navigable stream, then it is not protected; or if it is during the growing season, there may be no water, but during the winter there is plenty of water. Granted a lot of interpretation has to take place and those interpretations will likely be challenged in courts, so this is going to be a complex process to try to save and protect our wetlands.


During the Trump Administration, the Waters of the US (WOTUS) rule was rewritten based on Scalia’s opinion which resulted in about 50% of our Nation's wetlands losing protection under the US Clean Water Act. Court challenges kept the revised WOTUS rule from taking effect for most states. The Supreme Court ruling will result in more than 50% of the Nation's wetlands losing protection under the Clean Water Act. Honestly it is scary to think about how bad this could be for communities and wildlife that will be impacted by the lose and degradation of these waters.


North Carolina Wetland Protection

However, all is not lost at least in North Carolina where there is a state statute that says all waters of the state are under the jurisdiction of the state. During the brief implementation of the Trump WOTUS rule, the NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) drafted rules for the state the be able to provide permitting (and protection) for wetland that were no longer federally protected. Those rules were approved by the NC Environmental Management Commission but were never approved by the Legislature (the rule is stalled by procedural disagreements with the Rules Review Commission). Therefore, these are “temporary rules” which are protecting these wetlands in North Carolina.


However, there is a bill in the NC legislature (senate), Farm Act. S.B. 582, North Carolina Farm Act of 2023, that has a provision to not protect wetlands any more stringent than federal protection. If this bill goes through with that wetland provision, it would be devastation to NC’s wetlands. It is important that this bill does not go through or that the wetland provision is removed.             


What can you do?

You, our supporters, can help by contacting your state senator and explain why wetlands are important and does not belong in this bill. Tell your representative that the state has allocated tens of millions of dollars to use nature-based solutions (including wetlands) to reduce flood impacts for our coastal communities, yet they would be undermining this effort by not protecting the very resources we need to mitigate and/or reduce flooding of our communities.  The Carolina Wetlands Association is working with the Southern Environmental Law Center, Sound Rivers, NC Wildlife Federation, and others to educate our legislatures on the need to protect our wetlands. You can greatly help this process by using these resources to voice your concern.


What about South Carolina?

In South Carolina, the state legislature can take steps to protect wetlands beyond those protected by the federal government. Local municipalities (unlike in NC) can also increase wetland protection within their jurisdiction.  It is important that we take action with our state and local legislators to be sure we protect our wetlands, which are vital to our well-being and critical to protecting us from flooding and water quality degradation.


So when visiting your favorite wetland, think: what if it were not protected and a developer wants to build

on it?


Rick Savage

Executive Director

Carolina Wetlands Association


You might also like

Celebrating Our Carolina Wetlands

Federal Rollbacks Threaten Wetland Protections: What You Need to Know About Senate Bill 5653

By rick.savage • November 3, 2026
The U.S. Congress is poised to weaken federal protection of wetlands. To understand why these changes matter, it helps to know how wetland permitting actually works. How Wetland Permitting Is Supposed to Work Whether the permit goes through the State agency (e.g. NC DEQ or SC DES which reviews water quality impacts) and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and EPA (which review the physical, chemical, and biological impacts), every application is supposed to follow a three-step mitigation sequence: avoid, minimize, and compensate. Avoid. The reviewer works with the applicant to determine whether the impact can be avoided altogether. Often, it can. Minimize. If the impact can’t be avoided, the reviewer and applicant look for ways to reduce it. Compensate. If the remaining impact is large enough, the applicant must compensate for the loss using a formula provided by the ACOE. Mitigation normally takes place in the same watershed and provides the same function as the wetland that was lost. This process takes time, but it is essential. It ensures that applicants don’t overlook options that could spare valuable wetlands. What Senate Bill 5653 Would Change Senate Bill 5653 , the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA),aims to speed up federal and state regulatory decisions on housing and other development projects. But the bill would increase environmental degradation and undermine the federal-state partnerships that protect clean water. Here is the core problem: when permitting is rushed, reviewers can’t carry out the avoid, minimize, and compensate process. More wetlands will be damaged, and there will be no way to make up for the lost wetlands and the benefits they provide. A Weak Answer to the Housing Shortage BAAJA does little to address the real causes of the national housing shortage and construction challenges. Instead, it increases pollution and works against the central goal of the Clean Water Act: to restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters, including wetlands. The bill is an assault on the nation’s rivers, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes. It also looks like a deflection from Congress’s inability to pass legislation that meaningfully tackles the lack of available housing. Undercutting State Authority Over Water Quality BAAJA also limits the authority states hold under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, making it harder for them to meet the water quality standards they have set for their own waterbodies. That would set back five decades of progress toward cleaner water, progress to which every sector of society has contributed, and it would affect generations to come. Fewer Wetlands Protected, and Weaker Review for the Rest This is yet another attack on wetland protection, and it affects all of us. Even those wetlands that remain regulated after recent jurisdictional retreats by EPA and the ACOE would not receive the normal permitting review. In practice, that means they aren’t truly protected either. What You Can Do Contact your representative. Ask your senators to oppose Senate Bill 5653 . You can find and contact your U.S. senators here , or look up your U.S. representative here to share your concerns with the House as well. Support Carolina Wetlands Association. We are your organization fighting to protect wetlands. The next time you explore a wetland or pour a clean glass of water, consider making a donation to help us keep up this work.

Celebrating 10-years of Wetland Treasures Program

By chase.bergeson • October 16, 2026
A Decade of Celebrating Carolina's Wetland Treasures

Federal Rule Would Strip Protections from Many Wetlands and Streams

By kim.matthews • October 7, 2026
On September 9, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) offering additional ways to define “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). Why this definition matters The WOTUS definition determines which water bodies the federal government can protect under the Clean Water Act. In November 2025, the agencies proposed revisions to bring the definition in line with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA. After taking public comments, they have now put forward further options. The new proposal narrows federal jurisdiction even more, potentially stripping protections from the vast majority of U.S. wetlands and seasonal streams. What our comment letter says The Carolina Wetlands Association is submitting comments opposing the proposal. Our main concerns: It would undermine the Clean Water Act’s purpose. The law’s goal is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. This proposal would severely undercut that goal. The “days of water” test is a poor measure. The proposal decides jurisdiction by how many days a year water is present. That number correlates poorly with a waterway’s ability to carry pollution downstream to the rivers, lakes, and estuaries that would stay protected. Streams dry for as few as 30 days a year could lose protection, and polluters would have an incentive to discharge into them rather than into protected waters. Drinking water is at risk. About 56% of North Carolina’s stream miles feeding public drinking water systems are intermittent, ephemeral, or headwater streams. In South Carolina the figure is 51%. These systems serve 6.6 million people, who would bear higher health risks and treatment costs. Wetlands do critical work. They filter pollutants and nutrients that cause algal blooms, dead zones, and fish kills. Losing that function would also degrade groundwater, which many people drink untreated. The legal reasoning is flawed. We argue the agencies misread the Supreme Court’s language. “Relatively permanent” describes geographic features such as streams with defined beds and banks. The word “continuously” modifies “flowing” and doesn’t limit what counts as relatively permanent. It would be hard to implement. Many affected streams have no data showing how many days they lack surface water. That makes the rule difficult for agencies to administer and leaves landowners unable to tell whether the Clean Water Act applies to their property. The impacts haven’t been analyzed. The agencies should not finalize a rule before measuring the added pollution flowing from newly unprotected waters into those that supply drinking water, or projecting the resulting damage to downstream uses. What you can do Read the SNPRM Submit your comment by October 9, 2026, under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW-2025-0322 . Personal stories about the streams, wetlands, and drinking water you depend on are especially effective. Learn more: read the comments we submitted on the November 2025 version of the rule, many of which still apply.