Started By
Message

59% of wetlands could be open for development in Louisiana under new EPA proposal

Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:34 pm
Posted by member12
Bob's Country Bunker
Member since May 2008
33035 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:34 pm
New proposed rules: It has to be touching visible surface water at least part of the year under typical seasons.

quote:

LINK

The EPA’s long-awaited proposed rules would change what counts as federally protected waters in the United States. They suggest more rollbacks of regulations that could lead to development in Louisiana and across the country in areas that have long been shielded.

The draft regulations cover what are called the Waters of the United States, or WOTUS. They include new definitions for what counts as a wetland that falls under the protection of the Clean Water Act.

In short, the proposed updates require wetlands to touch permanent bodies of water — such as lakes, rivers or streams — and have visible surface water for at least part of the year in order for federal safeguards to apply.

Most at risk in Louisiana are the non-coastal, inland swamps that make up about 59% of the state’s wetlands area, according to an analysis from the Environmental Law Institute.

Environmental advocates argue the rules would put important ecosystems, flood control measures and pollution management at risk, while legal experts worry the definitions will only add more confusion to an already complex topic.

The public will have 45 days to submit a comment on the proposed WOTUS rules once they are officially published in the Federal Register on Thursday. The EPA will then consider whether any comment warrants revisions in the proposed regulations, which would be incorporated into the final version. The Trump administration has not laid out a timeline for putting the new rules into effect.


quote:

The removal of certain federal wetlands protections follows the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA, which pared back federal authority to enforce the Clean Water Act. An Idaho couple successfully challenged the agency when it stopped them from developing their property, with justices interpreting the definition of Waters of the United States to mean “’only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing.”
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
69196 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:36 pm to
This change will be incredible for infrastructure projects and economic development, but will likely lead to really bad flooding issues down the line where those developments happen.
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
137992 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:36 pm to
On one hand, the feds have been overstepping their bounds for the past 15 years on this.

On the other, developers won’t rest until every inch of natural ground is covered in shitty strip malls and DR Horton shitboxes.
Posted by SallysHuman
Lady Palmetto Bug
Member since Jan 2025
13145 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:37 pm to
Wasn't that a rule where a part time puddle on your property could keep you from being legally allowed to develop it? Some BHO era BS?
Posted by lsugorilla
PNW
Member since Sep 2009
6378 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:37 pm to
Hunting will get worse
Posted by When in Rome
Telegraph Road
Member since Jan 2011
36156 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:38 pm to
quote:

The public will have 45 days to submit a comment on the proposed WOTUS rules once they are officially published in the Federal Register on Thursday. The EPA will then consider whether any comment warrants revisions in the proposed regulations, which would be incorporated into the final version. The Trump administration has not laid out a timeline for putting the new rules into effect.
I wonder what POTUS thinks about WOTUS. If it becomes contentious with certain environmental groups, could WOTUS be decided by SCOTUS?
Posted by Tmar1no
Member since Jan 2014
574 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:39 pm to
Once had to get approval for my engineering project for a sidewalk with 18" concrete drainage pipe because they claimed the always-empty roadside ditch that was less than 1' deep was a waterway of the U.S.

Some level of deregulation was needed.
This post was edited on 11/20/25 at 1:40 pm
Posted by Cosmo
glassman's guest house
Member since Oct 2003
128750 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:40 pm to
quote:

Wasn't that a rule where a part time puddle on your property could keep you from being legally allowed to develop it? Some BHO era BS?


Yes and there are lots of stories out there of people getting railroaded by the EPA using this law.

Sackett v EPA
This post was edited on 11/20/25 at 1:42 pm
Posted by Purple Spoon
Hoth
Member since Feb 2005
20113 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:42 pm to
I’m torn on this. If you go too far one way the EPA will make ridiculous rules on what you can do with your own property. If you go too far the other way they’re going to start developing land that has no business being developed and caused rampant flooding to unknowing property owners and worsen Louisiana’s erosion problems.

Posted by member12
Bob's Country Bunker
Member since May 2008
33035 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:43 pm to
quote:

On one hand, the feds have been overstepping their bounds for the past 15 years on this.



Yeah I'm not sure if this is the right approach, but it's clear the feds needed to get bitch slapped. We can't build anything anymore because of this.
Posted by BottomlandBrew
Member since Aug 2010
29129 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:43 pm to
quote:

On one hand, the feds have been overstepping their bounds for the past 15 years on this.

On the other, developers won’t rest until every inch of natural ground is covered in shitty strip malls and DR Horton shitboxes.


Agree. This is an over-correction. Something needed to be changed on wetland designation, but this is a little too much of a change.
Posted by LemmyLives
Texas
Member since Mar 2019
12946 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:53 pm to
quote:

has no business being developed and caused rampant flooding to unknowing property owners and worsen Louisiana’s erosion problems.

FEMA publishes flood zone maps for a reason, and it's required in Texas to disclose in a listing if a property has ever flooded, as well as if flood insurance is in place. If someone wants to pay to insure a shitbox that's going to flood every ten years, that's their problem.
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
69196 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:53 pm to
POTUS on WOTUS at SCOTUS
Posted by winkchance
St. George, LA
Member since Jul 2016
6054 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 1:58 pm to
quote:

EPA


The number one reason there is no additional bridge across the MS River.

#2 is parish governments blocking it.
Posted by dewster
Chicago
Member since Aug 2006
26372 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:05 pm to
quote:

Yes and there are lots of stories out there of people getting railroaded by the EPA using this law.



Under the 1977 law, the EPA was interpreting their jurisdiction to "regulate discharges" into wetlands adjacent to navigable waterways". They took that a thousand miles too far. In the Sackett's case, their property wasn't even on a wetlands map - the only way they could even argue that it was connected to one was via a man made ditch across the street.

The Sacketts clearly pissed off some of their neighbors by trying to build on their own property. The EPA just showed up and issued a compliance order because they felt like it.

The way the EPA was arguing in that case would have made nearly anything they wanted within their jurisdiction for enforcement of the 1977 law.
Posted by dewster
Chicago
Member since Aug 2006
26372 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:06 pm to
quote:

Agree. This is an over-correction. Something needed to be changed on wetland designation, but this is a little too much of a change.



Hopefully we can get a bridge built in the interim before they change the law again.
Posted by bad93ex
Walnut Cove
Member since Sep 2018
33700 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:06 pm to
quote:

Wasn't that a rule where a part time puddle on your property could keep you from being legally allowed to develop it? Some BHO era BS?



Worked for a farmer that had a seasonal wet spot in his field that just need some better drainage but the Department of Natural Resources stepped in and said it is now a wetland and you can't touch it.
Posted by SallysHuman
Lady Palmetto Bug
Member since Jan 2025
13145 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:09 pm to
quote:

Worked for a farmer that had a seasonal wet spot in his field that just need some better drainage but the Department of Natural Resources stepped in and said it is now a wetland and you can't touch it.


I remember reading news blurbs here and there on the ridiculous impact this rule had. Crazy.
Posted by When in Rome
Telegraph Road
Member since Jan 2011
36156 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:10 pm to
quote:

POTUS on WOTUS at SCOTUS
Posted by bad93ex
Walnut Cove
Member since Sep 2018
33700 posts
Posted on 11/20/25 at 2:11 pm to
quote:

I remember reading news blurbs here and there on the ridiculous impact this rule had. Crazy.



Like everything else it was done with the best of intentions but no one could question future impact.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram