The remnants of the old levee are still visible at The Nature Conservancy's Emiquon Preserve in central Illinois, although these days it no longer holds back the Illinois River.
Now what was once corn and soybean fields is nearly 7,000 acres of lush restored wetlands.
Doug Blodgett grew up just across the river from what would eventually become the preserve. He remembers hearing old-timers reminisce about the days when there鈥檇 be so many geese migrating through the floodplains that they鈥檇 blot out the sun.
He wasn鈥檛 quite sure he believed those stories, until one day a few years into the restoration.
"There were, I don't know, 100,000 snow geese out here, and they all got up at once," he recalled, "... and the sun just disappeared, you could not see a ray of sunlight shining."
Blodgett, a senior advisor at The Nature Conservancy, is easing into semi-retirement this year. Seeing thousands of birds, waterfowl and native plants return to the Illinois River Valley since the restoration began in 2007 has given him hope that there are more wetlands out there waiting to be restored.
In addition to providing safe resting grounds for wildlife, wetlands serve as natural water filters, and can also reduce flooding during major rain events by giving water a place to sit and soak in.
But an ongoing U.S. Supreme Court case, , could roll back the federal government鈥檚 authority to regulate wetlands and potentially trim their protections altogether. That worries conservationists such as Blodgett, who says Illinois has lost 90% of the state鈥檚 original wetlands. Many other Midwestern state鈥檚 have lost over 50%, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
"We don鈥檛 have enough now, and we can't afford to lose more,鈥� Blodgett said. 鈥淪o it is of great concern of how this comes down and ultimately, the impact that it has on existing wetlands."
The challenge to the Clean Water Act
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in October for the Sackett v. EPA case, a 14-year-long legal battle launched from the backyard of an Idaho couple, the Sacketts, who were seeking to fill their lake adjacent property with gravel. The EPA stopped them.
The case, which has been to the high court twice now, is aimed at challenging the federal protections the provides to some waters and wetlands that fall under the definition of Waters of the United States, commonly called WOTUS.
A recent from the Tulane Institute on Water Resources Law and Policy has found that the ruling could have wide-ranging impacts and leave wetlands management up to states.
Mark Davis served as advisor on the report and has worked on wetland issues for 30 years. He said what鈥檚 at stake is the federal jurisdiction of the government over the nation's most valuable natural resource, water.
鈥淚t will mean that there are many important waters and wetlands that are no longer protected by law at all,鈥� he said.
Larger wetlands, like Emiquon, will likely remain untouched, according to Davis. But smaller, more isolated wetlands and streams may lose protections.
The Clean Water Act, passed in 1972, left wetlands protection very much up for interpretation. The law mentioned only 鈥渘avigable鈥� waters be included under WOTUS, giving them federal protection. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers later added 鈥渁djacent鈥� wetlands, a move upheld by a 1985 Supreme Court decision.
Over the decades there were several challenges around just what could be considered 鈥渁djacent鈥� wetlands.
Federal regulatory powers over wetlands remained relatively unchanged until 2006, when Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a case opinion stating a wetland should be under WOTUS protection if it shares a 鈥渟ignificant nexus鈥� with navigable water, meaning the water in the wetland would eventually head downstream.
Scott Strand, a senior attorney with the Environmental Law and Policy Center, said that under the Obama administration, the EPA and Army Corps more substantially outlined the 鈥渟ignificant nexus鈥� standard. Strand said the rule didn鈥檛 last long.
鈥淭hat became controversial and it eventually gave way,鈥� he said.
Courts across the country filed injunctions against the Obama era rule, and then the Trump Administration repealed it outright in 2019. The following year, the Biden administration yet again asked the EPA to revisit the rule, and in late December, the EPA finally released its latest version.
But the Sackett case could send the agency back to the drawing board, according to Paul Botts, the president and executive director of the Wetlands Initiative.
鈥淭he issue in that case is to what degree the current Clean Water Act gives the U.S. EPA authority to regulate isolated wetlands at all,鈥� he said. 鈥淚f a majority of the court decides that it does not, then no U.S. EPA rule on the topic is valid.鈥�
A patchwork of policy and protection
Should the court rule in favor of the Sacketts and limit the federal jurisdiction of agencies like the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to regulate the nation's wetlands, it would fall to individual states.
The Tulane study found that 24 states rely on the Clean Water Act to regulate wetlands in their states. That means that they would have limited wetland regulations if the Supreme Court narrows the scope of the Clean Water Act.
Leaving regulation to states could result in a patchwork of protections, according to Maisah Khan, policy director with Mississippi River Network.
鈥淩elying on different states to make up different rules ignores how what happens in one part of the Mississippi River has impacts on another,鈥� Khan said.
The Mississippi River basin is an interdependent system, which covers over 1.3 million square miles and 31 states. Environmental laws in each of those states impact the others.
For example, fewer wetlands to soak up pollutants in the upper basin means more of those pollutants will instead end up rushing downriver, adding to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Supreme Court is expected to return a decision on the Sackett case sometime early this year.
For now, the future for many of the country鈥檚 wetlands, especially those seemingly isolated from rivers or streams, remains uncertain.
Yet at Emiquon, life will go on.
Scientists have documented about 93% of Illinois鈥� threatened and endangered bird species associated with wetlands at the preserve. Blodgett thinks it could be more.
鈥淚'm pretty sure the other 6 or 7% are out there,鈥� he said while looking out across the wetlands. 鈥淲e just haven't had the right person at the right place at the right time to see them.鈥�
Madeline Heim, a reporter at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, contributed to this story, a collaboration between the Mississippi River Basin Ag & Water Desk and Harvest Public Media.
The an editorially independent reporting network based at the
is a collaboration of public media newsrooms in the Midwest based at KCUR in Kansas City.
