On Wednesday, the representative of a law firm that fought to deregulate American wetlands on the U.S. Supreme Court said Tennessee Building This will roll back up to 80% of protection for isolated state wetlands.

Tennessee lawmakers are considering bills to do so Greatly reduces wetland development requirementssupporting a diverse ecosystem, absorbs floods, and charges groundwater.

The state’s current regulations preceded the federal cleanwater law, which imposed the first federal protection of wetlands in the 1970s, and developers required that wetlands be compensated for the destruction of wetlands by preserving or restoring them elsewhere.

However, the erosion of federal regulations over the past two years has given the state more power to decide how to define and protect wetlands.

Sackettv. The Supreme Court’s decision at the EPA stripped federal protections from “isolated” wetlands that lack surface connections with waters considered to be US waters. The EPA recently announced its intention to reduce federal wetland regulations to reduce permitting costs for landowners and businesses, according to Lee Zeldin, EPA administrator appointed by President Donald Trump.

Pacific Legal Foundation Representative of plaintiffs Chantel and Mike Sackett when limiting the scope of the cleaning water law to only wetlands with continuous surface connections with US water.

Environmentalists: Second attempt at the wetland bill will leave 80% vulnerable to development

Kileen Lindgren, legal policy manager for a nonprofit constitutional litigation firm, told Tennessee lawmakers on Wednesday that the bill they are considering is about “property rights and regulatory accountability.”

“When government restricts it… use it underestimates property under the Fifth Amendment and violates owner rights,” she testified before the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee.

Lindgren was the only supporter to speak to the subcommittee, but he was a representative of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Tennessee home builders testified in support of the bill. Previous Senate Committee Meeting. Six representatives from the environmental groups and the mitigation banking industry have urged lawmakers to reconsider the bill, warning developers will largely remove incentives to design around wetlands rather than destroying them.

Lindgren said he preferred the first iteration of the bill. The current version of the bill retains the ability to impose mitigation requirements on high-quality isolated wetlands and over two acres of high-quality and low-quality isolated wetlands.

“This bill, introduced, has acknowledged that regulating land because it has water on it should be that the government underestimate the land and when the government devalues ​​the land, it should justly compensate its owners on the promise of the fifth amendment that individuals will not be deprived of life, liberty or property.

She said the amended bill was just “a first step towards protecting the rights of private property.”

“As amended, the bill assumes that states have the power to restrict the use of private property, and should legitimately compensate owners, recognizing that if the state wants to regulate isolated wetlands, Tennessee people must bear the burden of this type of government interference,” Lindgren said.

Kevin Vaughan, a Memphis Republican, sponsor of the bill’s House, has dispelled scientists’ warnings that the deregulation spurt will increase flooding and reduce water quality as exaggeration and speculation. Vaughn said his main problem is that the current rules appear to rely not only on the actions of destroying wetlands, but also on the intended use of people on the land. Agricultural uses are exempt from the easing requirements.

Developers seeking to get from the construction of a boom tied to the Ford factory push for weak wetland rules

“This all comes down to the man who decides where (the wetlands) are. It’s a game… deregulation needs to come, but it needs to be simplified through more mediocre regulations.

Nashville Democrat Justin Jones questioned the motivation behind Lindgren’s testimony.

“What I’m looking at with this is that this isn’t about property rights or conservation,” Jones said. “This is about the power of everyday Tennessees and lobbyists with special interest in this hill. Every email we received from the whole state – I literally… printed out all the emails and went through each – I opposed this bill.”

The subcommittee votes 7-2 to advance the bill to the Full House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, which will be heard on April 1st.