Why the definition of Water matters

Unlike Las Vegas, what happens in our nation’s capital does not STAY in our nation’s capital!

In this case, it started locally, right here in Idaho near Priest Lake, where an Idaho couple wanted to avoid the federal permitting process to develop their property. The catch was that their property included wetlands, which, per the Clean Water Act, required a federal permit to develop.

A significant series of court cases resulted, which ultimately ended up before the US Supreme Court, and their 2023 decision in Sacket v. EPA has ultimately changed how our federal government defines a wetland requiring protection.

Wetlands play a critical role in maintaining water quality by filtering sediment, nutrients, and contaminants before they reach streams, rivers, and lakes. This is particularly important in a region like ours with a history of mining, which is currently experiencing rapid growth and development. Wetlands help reduce the movement of heavy metals and other pollutants present in the soil into downstream waters.

In Sacket v. EPA, the definition of Waters of the United States or “WOTUS” was changed to include only navigable waters (think rivers, lakes, basically anything that can accommodate a boat), regularly flowing tributaries to those waters, or wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to a protected body of water.

A local federal employee recently told me that this change will reduce wetlands under federal regulation by 80 to 90%!

In Idaho, this change is especially concerning because our state does not have comprehensive wetland protection regulations beyond the federal Clean Water Act. As a result, wetlands that lose federal protection under this rule would be left largely unregulated, increasing the risk of pollutant loads, degraded aquatic habitat, and higher long-term costs for water treatment, flood damage, and environmental cleanup borne by local communities.

KEA, in its mission to conserve, protect, and restore, has submitted comments on the EPA’s proposed definition change of Waters of the United States, and needless to say, we do not support reduced protections for our wetlands. We will keep an eye on this as it plays out!

To read more about the monumental ripple effects of this ruling, check out this article.