(lively music) - Wetlands offer many benefits, including improved water quality, flood control, and habitat for wildlife.

But protections for wetlands in Illinois and around the country could be at risk because of a US Supreme Court ruling.

And a new report shows the severity of the situation.

Becky Hammer is the senior attorney for the Nature Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The NRDC is an international nonprofit environmental organization.

Thanks for being with us, Becky.

We appreciate it.

- Thanks for having me.

- Well, this is a complicated situation.

I guess maybe we should start years and years ago with the Clean Water Act, and maybe let's remind people what all that has encompassed, I guess, up until about two years ago.

- Well, the Clean Water Act was adopted in 1972.

It's one of our country's flagship environmental laws.

It has, for over 50 years, been the most important line of protection for our country's surface waters.

So that's anything from lakes, rivers, streams, and until a couple years ago, wetlands.

And the protections that it established meant that no one was allowed to pollute or destroy water bodies without asking permission first.

And so it's been a very important framework that has protected our water bodies for half a century.

- So in, I believe it was 2023, there was a court case, US Supreme Court case, Sackett versus EPA.

Can you tell us about that?

And in layman's terms because I know it's really complicated, but tell us about that case, and the effect that it's had on the Clean Water Act.

- This case had to do with the types of water bodies that are protected by the law.

Unfortunately, when Congress passed this law in 1972, they used pretty vague language to describe the types of water bodies that the law covers.

The phrase that the statute uses is "Waters of the United States," which is, you know, up to interpretation.

And it has been interpreted in different ways over the last 50 years.

Wetlands have always been one of the more debated types of water bodies in terms of whether they count as waters of the United States that are protected by the law.

And what the Supreme Court decided two years ago in Sackett versus EPA was that for purposes of the Clean Water Act, most wetlands are not waters that are covered by the law unless they are physically touching and have a surface connection with a larger water body, like a river or a lake.

And so for practical purposes, that eliminated most of the country's wetlands from protection.

- Okay, well, here in Illinois, it's been estimated that we've lost over the years 90% of our wetlands.

So with only 10% left, what kind of a threat could we potentially be looking at?

- So that's correct.

About 200 years ago, estimates show that about 1/4 of the state was in fact covered by wetlands.

So the losses have been substantial over the last 200 years, making it extremely important to protect what's left.

Now, my organization, we wanted to understand what the on-the-ground impact of the Supreme Court's ruling would be in different states, as well as looking at nationwide.

So we used GIS mapping tools to map out a couple of different scenarios that could identify which wetlands no longer have protection.

And the reason we needed to look at a couple different scenarios was because the Supreme Court's decision used some vague wording that, again, could be interpreted in different ways.

And the Trump administration has announced that it plans to rewrite the regulations that describe which water bodies are covered to comply with the court's ruling.

And they could do that in a very restrictive way or a less restrictive way that includes, you know, different restrictions on wetlands.

So when we looked at three different scenarios, we found, first of all, that even under the most optimistic scenario, at least 100,000 acres of wetlands in Illinois now are completely unprotected.

And that is almost certainly an underestimate.

When we looked at the more severe scenarios, which are what industry groups and polluters are urging the administration to adopt, the harms were much greater.

Under the mid-range scenario, a quarter million acres of wetlands in Illinois would be unprotected.

And under the most extreme scenario, which many industry groups are advocating for, a million acres of wetlands in Illinois would have no protections, and that would be 96% of the wetland area in the state.

- So if these areas aren't protected, what are some of the worst case scenarios that the NRDC is worried about?

- Well, I guess it's important to understand that federal law isn't the only possible way to protect wetlands.

And in some states, they have their own laws on the books that establish protections for wetlands within the state.

And that has mitigated the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in those states.

Unfortunately, Illinois is not one of those states.

Illinois does not have a comprehensive state wetland protection program.

So that means now that wetlands in Illinois don't have federal protection, they could be paved over, you know, converted into agricultural use and drained, you know, developed, built upon with no consequences.

So it really is a critical situation for wetlands in the state.

- Yeah, you mentioned Illinois doesn't have a comprehensive state wetlands program.

There is one being floated now in the General Assembly, the Wetlands Protection Act, but as of the time we're recording this, nothing's been voted on for that.

I'm curious, with wetlands, you know, I said off the top of the show what the benefits were.

Can you tell us a little bit more about why wetlands are so important?

Because I think a lot of people, you know, they don't see wetlands every day.

Maybe they're out of sight, out of mind, but just how important are they for our environment?

- Wetlands are environmental powerhouses.

It would actually be hard to overstate how important wetlands are, not just for nature and wildlife, but for our own communities and for people.

So, for example, wetlands, they filter the drinking water sources for millions of people across the country, you know, before the water makes it into, you know, the river, the lake where your community draws its drinking water from oftentimes has been filtered through a wetland first.

It cleans and purifies the water.

Wetlands also can store flood waters and protect communities from flooding.

A single acre of wetland can store 100,000 gallons of flood water.

So they keep our communities safe.

And, you know, if you are a nature lover, if you love wildlife, many, many endangered and threatened species depend on wetlands for their habitat, as well as just the other plants and animals that we all love to enjoy.

So, you know, wet... And I mean, I could spend the entire interview talking about the benefits of wetlands, but those are the ones that I really want people to remember.

- Yeah, and just to give folks an idea, watching here in central Illinois, you know, a wetland could be an acre, it could be thousands of acres.

In our area, people are probably familiar with the Emiquon National Wildlife Refuge in Fulton County, which has thousands of acres.

There's also one just south of Hennepin and Putnam County, that's the Sue And Wes Dixon Waterfowl Refuge.

So things are going on, people are trying to help with the wetlands.

You mentioned the Trump administration, as we've seen over the last 100 days plus making a lot of changes, rolling back a lot of environmental laws.

In terms of wetlands, I mean, it gets even bigger than that.

What else are your concerns as far as what the Trump administration is doing right now?

- We are seeing a full frontal assault on our nation's environmental laws at the moment.

We are tracking a number of proposals.

Again, as you said, this administration only came in to office a couple of months ago, but already they've announced intentions to roll back recently adopted.

Just yesterday, they announced they wanted to roll back recently adopted drinking water standards for forever chemicals, known as PFAS, which is a significant concern.

You know, since they also were in office before, many of the same folks four or five years ago, you know, we also know that they are going to probably seek changes to some of the other water-related protections that we have that protect communities from things like pollute water pollution from fossil fuel generation, or, you know, lead in drinking water.

So it's very concerning.

So yes, wetlands are just one piece of the puzzle.

- Well, it seems like the administration is concerned about, I should say, I guess, more concerned about making more jobs, being more friendly to these big corporations.

I guess from your point of view, how do you balance that?

How do you balance having a safe environment, but also having places for people to work, and grow their businesses?

- I would argue that is a false choice, and we can absolutely have both.

We have to have both.

Wetlands in particular because they provide so many benefits to our communities, that has significant economic value.

And when we lose wetlands, it costs our communities money.

You know, we have more flood damage.

We have to treat our drinking water to a higher standard because the water that's coming in is more polluted.

Maybe we have water shortages.

You know, wetlands help recharge our groundwater supplies so that we have sources of drinking water to drink.

And those have real costs when they're lost.

And in the case of wetlands, once they're gone, in many cases, it's really hard to get them back.

You can create an artificial wetland or, you know, manmade wetlands, but they don't have quite the same environmental benefits as a naturally occurring wetland.

So keeping those in place has absolutely critical environmental and economic benefits for our communities.

- Our governor here in Illinois is a very, I guess environmentally friendly would be the term.

He's very concerned about the environment.

When you have a state government that is concerned about the environment, and then the federal government, which wants to roll back some of these laws, how do you get anything done?

- It is challenging, but states have a lot of discretion and leeway under many of our federal laws to go beyond what the federal minimum requirements are.

In most cases, federal environmental laws are written to be a floor, not a ceiling.

So, you know, wherever the federal government sets that floor, that's the minimum.

But states can go above and beyond.

And, you know, as we're here to talk about wetlands, many states have adopted wetland protections that are more protective than what the national laws require.

And Illinois can absolutely do that.

That's why we've been working on this bill that you mentioned that's currently pending in the legislature that would, you know, restore the protections that the Supreme Court has eliminated that is well within the state's right and authority to do so.

- We mentioned the NRDC is a nonprofit environmental organization.

How important is it for you to get the public on your side to do kind of a, I assume you do a lot of grassroots activities.

How important is it for you to get that public, you know, the public to get on board with what you're talking about?

- It's essential, but, you know, fortunately, these issues are really popular.

We've worked with a number of partner organizations to do, you know, polling and talking to folks on the ground and finding out what issues matter to them.

And clean water is consistently one of the most important issues to people in poll after poll.

Protecting wildlife habitat is extremely popular among Illinois residents.

These are things that people really understand and care about.

And, you know, if it wasn't, you're right, it would be really hard for us to, you know, push on these issues.

But that's fortunately not a problem that we have because people understand the benefits of preserving these increasingly rare and valuable ecosystems.

- I know you've been there for a few years, when you have a federal government president that comes in that's maybe not on the same page as you, do you see kind of a groundswell of people supporting you because they may feel that, you know, things like the NRDC are under attack?

- That has happened.

Yes.

You know, we value all of our supporters.

You know, we couldn't do this work without them.

And yeah, it is the case that when a president is elected who is more hostile to environmental protections, we do often see a surge in support.

And I think that just reflects that people are concerned.

You know, people don't wanna see our environmental protections rolled back.

They don't wanna see our natural resources destroyed.

And so that's where we come in and we're gonna keep fighting the good fight.

- I believe in 1970s when the Clean Water Act was enacted, one of the things that got lawmakers' attention, I think Lake Erie was on fire.

- [Becky] Yes.

And the Cuyahoga River.

- Yes.

- You know?

Yes.

- So when you see things like that, it's very easy to tell people, "Hey, this is a problem."

But, you know, when you're talking about wetlands, a lot of them are in rural areas, maybe not very populated areas.

How do you get that message out?

And is there a way that you really, you know, whether it's visually or whatever, can get people's attention and let them know that this is a big deal?

- Storytelling and, you know, lifting up important areas, specific places is a big part of this work, you know, to help people kind of grasp in a very tangible way why these protections are important.

So yes, you're exactly right.

It is challenging sometimes.

You know, fortunately, there are wetlands all across the state of Illinois.

You know, even if you live in a city or you know, a developed area, you know, my guess is that there is a wetland somewhere near you.

Maybe you don't think of it as a wetland, maybe it's just kind of like that kind of wet acre of land that's, you know, maybe behind the park or something.

But, you know, it's there.

They're everywhere.

They're in our communities.

They're working hard for us.

And NRDC, you know, we're not based in Illinois.

We do have an office in Chicago, but we work very closely with Illinois-based organizations who are very familiar with, you know, the communities and with the different landscapes.

And we work with them to lift up examples of wetlands that, you know, people might know and appreciate.

- Besides wetlands, what other issues that are going on federally are you concerned about when it comes to our environment?

(Becky chuckling) - There are many.

So I work on water specifically.

So that's my area of expertise.

And so probably most of my answers would be water focused.

I guess one water-related issue that is true of all environmental, you know, issues right now is federal funding.

We have seen both the administration and Congress propose pretty severe cuts to a lot of environmental programs this year.

You know, I was just watching a hearing yesterday about potential cuts of 90% to the programs that fund waste water and drinking water upgrades in our communities.

So that would, you know, make it extremely hard for communities to provide safe drinking water, clean, safe water in their rivers and lakes.

But obviously, the threats go far beyond water.

You know, my colleagues are working on, you know, potential rollbacks to all kinds of safeguards, you know, whether it's climate change or public lands, wildlife.

I don't think there's going to be an environmental issue that we don't see the administration attack.

- Talking about clean water, and you mentioned PFAS, PFAS earlier on.

You know, again, that's something that you can't see in the water usually.

You can't see it, doesn't taste like anything.

But how big of an issue is, you know, those materials in our water in terms of our health?

- Well, the scientific community is still trying to figure out exactly what the health impacts of this exposure is.

It is very concerning.

I think it's something that folks should be aware of and tracking because the evidence shows that these tiny chemicals, as you said, you know, you can't see them, but they are everywhere.

They have been found in, you know, body tissue, different organs of the body in all parts of the world, all different ecosystems.

I mean, they're out there.

And the problem with them is that we call them forever chemicals because they don't break down naturally in the environment.

So once the pollution is out there, it's there to stay.

And that's why it's really, really important to adopt strict limits, both on, you know, the production of it, as well as, you know, its use in different products, and how much of it should be, you know, in our drinking water.

- And when it comes to water companies who service our areas all over the country, do you think, are the water companies doing enough or are they doing whatever the minimum standards are that the states regulate?

- I think the answer to that certainly varies from water system to water system.

There are tens of thousands of drinking water systems across the country, and many of them are very well run, and they being proactive about this issue, while others I'm sure are, you know, maybe smaller and have fewer resources, and they're doing, you know, the minimum that's required.

So, you know, if you're worried about what's in your drinking water, you can usually, in most places, if you're on a public drinking water system, you can, you know, log on and see the water quality testing reports to see, you know, what they've found in the water, and whether it meets federal standards.

There probably won't be information available on PFAS on other forever chemicals specifically because those regulations that were recently adopted haven't fully been implemented yet.

So that's still something that we're working on.

- And you've obviously looked at...

Going back to wetlands, you've looked at all the data from, you know, our 50 states.

How does Illinois rank in terms of the other states?

Are we good, bad, indifferent?

I mean, where do we stand on being concerned about our wetlands?

- I would place Illinois more on the concerning end of the scale, both because so few of the state's original wetlands remain, and so few protections are in place.

So between those two factors, you know, the situation is pretty stark in Illinois.

I think it's really critical that the state legislature pass the legislation that is currently pending.

You know, it would set up a very commonsense permitting program that just replaces the protections that were lost federally.

You know, fewer than 10% of the original wetlands in the state are still present.

And it's absolutely essential to protect the ones that are left.

- And a lot of those wetlands are gone because of agriculture and, you know, where there were wetlands, the soil was great for farming.

Do you have any issues, or when it comes to wetlands on private property, I mean, are folks wanting to get the wetland off of their property?

So you have to deal with private citizens when it comes to that kind of thing too?

- Yeah, that's one of the main reasons why we need to establish these protections because most wetlands are on public property.

And the greatest threat to wetlands in most areas is currently, it's land development.

You know, people own land, they want to build something on it.

And so, you know, they want to, you know, drain the wetland, make it into dry land and put something there, which, you know, is often fine.

But we've got, you know, a kind of collective interest in preserving the natural resources that are, you know, all kind of to our common benefit.

And so the way that the federal regulatory system worked, at least until the Supreme Court changed things two years ago, was that if you were a private landowner and you had a wetland on your land, you wanted to build something, you had to ask for a permit.

And as part of the permitting process, there were steps to walk through.

You know, can we avoid impacting the wetland?

You know, maybe, you know, the wetland is only part of the site and you can build on the other part of the site.

If not, can we minimize the amount of harm we're causing to the wetland?

And if we can't do that, then there was a requirement to kind of offset the harm by protecting or restoring a wetland that was nearby.

And so through that process, you know, we could ensure that people could make good use of their land while also ensuring that we're not losing any more of our wetlands.

Now, that was the system before the Supreme Court kicked a lot of wetlands out of the program.

And the bill that's pending in Illinois and the state legislature would just recreate that pretty much exact same process at the state levels.

- Well, we will see where that goes with the state, and their spring session is just about over.

So we'll see if they can get something done right now.

Anything else you'd like folks to know before we let you go?

- Just that, you know, wetlands are an amazing resource and I encourage you to, you know, visit a wetland in your area, see the wildlife that's there.

You know, think about how it might connect with the other waterways in the area.

They're such vital resources for our communities.

We also have a mapping tool online on NRDC's website that allows you to zoom in on your area and see which wetlands, well, which wetlands are there, but also which ones might now lack protections.

And it might be pretty eye-opening.

- All right.

Well, Becky Hammer is with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

We appreciate your time, Becky.

Thank you.

- Thank you so much.

- And that is our time for right now.

Thanks for joining us.

You can find us at wtvp.org, and on Facebook and Instagram.

Have a good night.

(lively music) (lively music continues) (lively music continues) (lively music continues)