Following a Supreme Court ruling that removed federal protections for many wetlands, states are now divided on how to respond, with some enhancing protections and others rolling them back.
The ruling has led to a varied response among states, with blue states like Illinois seeking to bolster wetland protections, while red states, including Indiana, are reducing safeguards.
The absence of federal oversight leaves over half of the nation's wetlands vulnerable, impacting water quality and flood management.
States without prior regulations or those rolling back existing ones face criticism for undermining environmental protections and public health.
Key quote:
"It creates a checkered landscape in terms of water quality."
— Marla Stelk, executive director of the National Association of Wetland Managers
Local environmental groups PennEnvironment and Three Rivers Waterkeeper filed a federal lawsuit against BVPV Styrenics for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act — a charge the company continues to dispute.
The complaint alleges that Bluestone is in violation of the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants into a stream that exceed levels allowed by its permit.
The Environmental Protection Agency and US Army on Tuesday released a new rule that slashes federally protected water by more than half, following a Supreme Court decision in May that rolled back protections for US wetlands.
At both the state and federal levels, there are laws aiming to even the scales of environmental impacts. It’s a concept called compensatory mitigation, included in Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act.
