Iowa’s wetlands are at risk

In 2023, when the U.S. Supreme Court greatly curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to protect the Waters of the U.S., Iowa Republicans couldn’t have been more pleased with its decision in Sackett v. EPA.

"This is a win for Iowa farmers and landowners, and a major blow to the Biden Administration's effort to exert control over as many puddles, ditches, and streams as possible,” U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson said in a statement.

“The federal government has no authority to impose blanket jurisdiction over puddles, waters, and wetlands with vague, overreaching regulations on behalf of Biden’s ever-changing climate agenda,” said Sen. Joni Ernst.

You might be sensing a similarity. But there are no puddle police. And, unfortunately, we also have no hyperbole police.

In the court’s majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that federally protected wetlands must be adjacent to a “relatively permanent” waterway that connects to federally protected navigable waters. That connection, Alito wrote, must be through continuous surface water.

No longer can the EPA protect intermittent streams and wetlands that are not permanently wet. Those features do the important job of soaking up runoff, improving water quality and holding water to mitigate downstream flooding.

Yes, the EPA did have the authority to police some drainage ditches. But if your ditch carries water that ends up in a river, we should care what you’re dumping into it.

As a result of the ruling, according to analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council, 41% of Iowa wetlands are at risk under the best-case scenario for how new federal rules will take shape. Under the most damaging scenario, 98% could be put at risk by a regulatory rollback.

The ruling was nothing to celebrate, unless you want to farm or develop on a wetland. Drain it, fill it and put a strip mall on top, or grow more corn. Create more runoff. Tough darts if the water gets dirtier and flooding downstream gets worse. Freedom, for some.

“Wetlands process and treat water to reduce pollution, which reduces the treatment costs for downstream drinking water utilities” said Michael R. Schmidt General Counsel and Colleen Fowle the Water Program Manager with the Iowa Environmental Council in a letter to the EPA in April. The agency is taking comments on rule changes. The council released the letter Friday.

“For a state with the second-highest cancer rate and significant pollution of drinking water sources, we need all the wetland filtration we can get. Finally, wetlands provide habitat for migratory waterfowl and other wildlife that cannot survive elsewhere,” they wrote.

The council says every acre of wetland in Iowa provides $745 worth of flood protection, which amounts to $477 million annually.

On the other side are the Farm Bureau, Iowa Corn Growers Association and many other are among groups weighing in to support very narrow regulations harming wetlands.

“I’m a farmer and I need a rule that’s on one page, that is sitting on the dash of my truck right next to my devotional book, and if I have a question about a ravine on my farm, I can pick that one page up, read it, and interpret it myself,” said American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall at an EPA event.

The paper will say, “Do whatever you want, Zippy.”

Meanwhile, our elected leaders will come to Cedar Rapids vowing to support flood protection efforts while, at the same time, the Trump administration will be handing out permits to drain the wetlands that are an important tool in the flood fight. Taxpayer money in Iowa is being used by landowners to create new wetlands. Some will not be protected.

States, at this point, are free to pass laws protecting wetlands. But Republicans who control the Legislature and Gov. Kim Reynolds do not care about environmental protection. Neither does the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission.

They care about profit, power and campaign donations. Wetlands don’t stand a chance.

(319) 398-8262; todd.dorman@thegazette.com