View in EDS PDF Full Text

Wetlands Conservation in the United States after Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency: Patchwork Protection of a Valued Resource.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Wetlands Conservation in the United States after Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency: Patchwork Protection of a Valued Resource.
Authors: Steinhoff, Gordon1 gordon.steinhoff@usu.edu
Source: Electronic Green Journal. 2025, Issue 52, p1-24. 24p.
Subject Terms: Wetlands, Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Environmental policy, State regulation, Nature conservation, Environmental protection, Habitats, Clean Water Act of 1972
Geographic Terms: United States
Company/Entity: United States. Environmental Protection Agency , United States. Supreme Court
Abstract: In Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (Sackett v. EPA, 2023), the Supreme Court declared that many of the country's remaining wetlands are not "waters of the United States," which excludes them from protection under the federal Clean Water Act. Yet the excluded wetlands are critical for improved water quality, flood control, wildlife habitat, and other valuable functions. The Court's decision left their protection to the individual states. Since Sackett, wetlands conservation in the United States has become a patchwork affair. Many states' wetlands, without federal protection, are at risk from agriculture and development; further loss is unsustainable. This article argues that wetlands must be protected at the federal level through a revised Clean Water Act, which will be difficult to achieve. Fortunately, there are other ways to protect wetlands without federal support, and citizens have a few options to get involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Electronic Green Journal is the property of Electronic Green Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: ehh
DbLabel: Education Research Complete
An: 189924704
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Wetlands Conservation in the United States after Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency: Patchwork Protection of a Valued Resource.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Steinhoff%2C+Gordon%22">Steinhoff, Gordon</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><i> gordon.steinhoff@usu.edu</i>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Electronic+Green+Journal%22">Electronic Green Journal</searchLink>. 2025, Issue 52, p1-24. 24p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subject Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Wetlands%22">Wetlands</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sackett+v%2E+U%2ES%2E+Environmental+Protection+Agency+%28EPA%29%22">Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Environmental+policy%22">Environmental policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+regulation%22">State regulation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Nature+conservation%22">Nature conservation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Environmental+protection%22">Environmental protection</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Habitats%22">Habitats</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Clean+Water+Act+of+1972%22">Clean Water Act of 1972</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectGeographic
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+States%22">United States</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectCompany
  Label: Company/Entity
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+States%2E+Environmental+Protection+Agency%22">United States. Environmental Protection Agency</searchLink> <br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+States%2E+Supreme+Court%22">United States. Supreme Court</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (Sackett v. EPA, 2023), the Supreme Court declared that many of the country's remaining wetlands are not "waters of the United States," which excludes them from protection under the federal Clean Water Act. Yet the excluded wetlands are critical for improved water quality, flood control, wildlife habitat, and other valuable functions. The Court's decision left their protection to the individual states. Since Sackett, wetlands conservation in the United States has become a patchwork affair. Many states' wetlands, without federal protection, are at risk from agriculture and development; further loss is unsustainable. This article argues that wetlands must be protected at the federal level through a revised Clean Water Act, which will be difficult to achieve. Fortunately, there are other ways to protect wetlands without federal support, and citizens have a few options to get involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Electronic Green Journal is the property of Electronic Green Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=189924704
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.5070/G3.41964
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 24
        StartPage: 1
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Wetlands
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Environmental policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: State regulation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Nature conservation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Environmental protection
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Habitats
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Clean Water Act of 1972
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United States
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United States. Environmental Protection Agency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United States. Supreme Court
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Wetlands Conservation in the United States after Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency: Patchwork Protection of a Valued Resource.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Steinhoff, Gordon
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Text: 2025
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 10767975
          Numbering:
            – Type: issue
              Value: 52
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Electronic Green Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1