Comment on Wetlands Protections by January 5th

Big Fin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
17,182
Location
Bozeman, MT
Many of you might have read the Outdoor Life article as to why the proposal to redefine "The Waters of the United States" is so important. If you haven't, here is a link - https://www.outdoorlife.com/opinion/epa-rule-change-disastrous-for-fish-wildlife/

Summary being, the Administration is working to change the Definition of what waters are covered under the Clean Water Act. For decades, wetlands were covered under this definition. That process slowed the conversion of wetlands to agriculture and development, though still allowed enough variance that wetland losses have continue, just at a slower pace.

The effort to change these wetlands protections is being done under the campaign of Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, an Executive Order signed by POTUS. As is normally the case when industry pushes for change, it is not rational common sense changes that get proposed, rather a complete shift to the opposite end of the spectrum.

I'm all about getting rid of extraneous regulations, but when we are talking about water, a vital resource that moves and flows, a resource where entire communities can be impacted when water flows through a property, I'm not on board with fewer protections.

We have already lost the majority of wetlands in this country. I hope hunters are interested in conserving what we have left.

If you take the time to comment, the Corps of Engineers is taking comments at this link until January 5th - https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/COE_FRDOC_0001-1000
 
Done. Thanks for throwing up the link, Randy. All I want for Christmas is a political/financial system that recognizes that most people, regardless of politics, want clean water, clean air, public lands and strong populations of wildlife!
 
Wetlands are such a vital component of nature’s filtration system anyone who drinks water or uses water in any way should be all in on saving wetlands.
 
The Sackett decision is the primary catalyst for recent changes in wetland and WOTUS interpretation, not a policy agenda driven by Trump. The U.S. Supreme Court significantly narrowed the scope of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, which in turn requires the Corps and other agencies to adjust their regulatory approach. I'm not siding with one side or the other here, just stating the SCOTUS decision is driving the bus and has been since 2023.

The definition of wetlands and Waters of the United States has been unclear and inconsistently applied for decades. Recent efforts to revise or clarify that definition do not appear likely to resolve this longstanding uncertainty and may further complicate implementation and enforcement.

Additionally, the statement in the referenced Outdoor Life article is inaccurate, along with the other hyperbole linked to acid drainage. The link has nothing to do with Sackett and defining wetlands. The article attributes observed discoloration in remote Alaskan streams to “mining contaminants” released from thawing permafrost.These are not mining related contaminants, rather naturally occurring minerals that have accumulated in permafrost over thousands of years and are being mobilized as permafrost degrades exacerbated by unusually wet conditions (may be transitioning into a new "normal," for this region, or not).

Send in a comment, but make sure it has a well defined purpose and not an opinion. They're just going through the motions, and its highly unlikely that any comment will change their view. Its been to the SCOTUS after all...
 
Back
Top