The impact of the Clean Water Act<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In 1977, a federal goal of \u201cno net loss\u201d was created to protect wetlands, requiring wetlands lost to infrastructure development to be replaced by restoring or building new wetlands. This has since been endorsed by two Republican and three Democratic presidents \u2013 and the authority in section 404 of the Clean Water Act has been a key tool to achieve this goal.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Prior to the Sackett v. EPA decision, the Clean Water Act protected wetlands that had a \u201csignificant nexus\u201d to federally protected waters and included perennial or ephemeral connections via surface water or groundwater.\u00a0Now, only wetlands with a continuous surface water connection to federally protected waters are federally protected.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The result of the Sackett decision is to remove federal oversight from any wetlands that are not directly adjacent to or connected to a river, stream, lake or ocean. This will weaken the act\u2019s original intention to \u201crestore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation\u2019s waters,\u201d protecting it for drinking, recreation and for wildlife that depend on aquatic habitats. It will also make it harder to achieve \u201cno net loss.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Putting the Nation\u2019s <\/span><\/b>wetlands at risk<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Wetlands that are especially at risk include numerous <\/span>freshwater wetlands, bogs, peatlands, brackish and interdunal wetlands, floodplain wetlands cut off from rivers by levees and berms, desert arroyos and intermittent streams<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n When we lose wetlands, we also lose many benefits they provide to communities.\u00a0 <\/span>Wetlands serve as flood buffers, filter pollutants out of water, absorb carbon, provide habitat for wildlife and are a source of food, jobs and recreation for humans. Studies have shown that wetlands that lack surface water connections still provide physical, chemical and biological functions that could affect the integrity of downstream waters and even <\/span>ephemeral wetlands dissipate floodwaters and reduce the downstream risk of property loss or human injury<\/span><\/a>.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The <\/span>ruling <\/span>is expected to result in increased flooding, water pollution, well water contamination and increased water prices.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Be prepared for more flooding, especially in downstream communities<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n W<\/span>etlands are pivotal in protecting communities from flooding<\/span>, acting <\/span>as natural sponges that absorb and hold floodwater<\/span>s, as well as<\/span> reduce their speed. <\/span>Loss of wetlands upstream can increase flooding downstream, and on neighboring communities.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n During Hurricane Sandy, <\/span>wetlands saved the 12 states impacted from an additional <\/span>$625 million in damage.<\/span> One hectare of wetland loss in developed areas <\/span>costs society $8,290 in flood mitigation value<\/span><\/a>.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Wetlands and floodplains also <\/span>can reduce downstream flood <\/span><\/a>damages by more than 50%<\/span>. This is because downstream communities often experience increased flooding due to the actions of upstream neighbors. For instance, development and growth in a Houston suburb led to increased runoff during major storms that f<\/span>lows<\/span><\/a> downstream toward downtown Houston and caused flooding<\/span>.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Flood impacts will likely be unequal<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Moreover, flooding in the United States disproportionately impacts minority communities, and <\/span>future flood risk will continue this trend<\/span><\/a>. Not only are these communities more vulnerable, but they often have fewer resilience strategies in place to recover from flood events. Research shows <\/span>Black residents impacted by natural disasters tend to lose wealth in the aftermath while white residents tend to gain wealth,<\/span><\/a> as <\/span>disaster aid tends to favor white populations<\/span><\/a>.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/growingreturns\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/52\/files\/\/0A4A9780-1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n