Two years ago this week, the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. the Environmental Protection Agency significantly limited the agency’s ability to use the 1972 Clean Water Act to safeguard the nation’s wetlands from pollution and destruction. The decision determined that wetlands — waterlogged habitats that help filter water and sequester carbon — must be indistinguishable from larger bodies of water to be eligible for protection under the law.
Ellman’s bill is “definitely in a precarious situation this year,” said Jennifer Walling, who runs the Illinois Environmental Council, an organization that advances environmental policy statewide. “This is something that makes so much sense. It should be bipartisan support, and yet it’s getting a lot of challenges.”
One major opponent stands in the way: the Illinois Farm Bureau. “If the Farm Bureau is against it, a lot of legislators from downstate will be against it,” Ellman told Grist. “I think a lot of planets would have to align before we could get this bill passed this session.”
“We should be able to respond to rollbacks of the Clean Water Act that threaten our water quality here,” said Robert Hirschfeld, with the Illinois-based Prairie Rivers Network.
Hirschfeld, from the Prairie Rivers Network, argued that agribusiness interests like the Farm Bureau have the effect of blocking progressive environmental policy. He compared Iowa and Illinois, specifically — two states with incredibly different politics, but equally active Farm Bureaus. “Iowa can be all red, top to bottom,” he said. Illinois, on the other hand, has a “democratic supermajority.”
But “when it comes to ag policy, what is the difference?” If Illinois’ wetland bill fails again, it might confirm his fears: “There’s just not a difference.”
Read the full article here.