Federal Rollbacks Threaten Wetland Protections: What You Need to Know About Senate Bill 5653

rick.savage • November 3, 2026

The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) are once again weakening federal protection of wetlands. To understand why these changes matter, it helps to know how wetland permitting actually works.


How Wetland Permitting Is Supposed to Work

Whether the permit goes through the NC Department of Water Resources (which reviews water quality impacts) or the ACOE (which reviews the physical impact), every application is supposed to follow a three-step process: avoid, minimize, and mitigate.


  • Avoid. The reviewer works with the applicant to determine whether the impact can be avoided altogether. Often, it can.
  • Minimize. If the impact can’t be avoided, the reviewer and applicant look for ways to reduce it.
  • Mitigate. If the remaining impact is large enough, the applicant must compensate for the loss using a formula provided by the ACOE.


Mitigation normally takes place in the same watershed and must provide the same function as the wetland that was lost. This process takes time, but it is essential. It ensures that applicants don’t overlook options that could spare valuable wetlands.


What Senate Bill 5653 Would Change

Senate Bill 5653, the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA),aims to speed up federal and state regulatory decisions on housing and other development projects. But the bill would increase environmental degradation and undermine the federal-state partnerships that protect clean water.


Here is the core problem: when permitting is rushed, reviewers can’t carry out the avoid, minimize, and mitigate process. More wetlands will be damaged, and there will be no way to make up for the lost wetlands and the benefits they provide.


A Weak Answer to the Housing Shortage

BAAJA does little to address the real causes of the national housing shortage and construction challenges. Instead, it increases pollution and works against the central goal of the Clean Water Act: to restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters, including wetlands.


The bill is an assault on the nation’s rivers, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes. It also looks like a deflection from Congress’s inability to pass legislation that meaningfully tackles the lack of available housing.


Undercutting State Authority Over Water Quality

BAAJA also limits the authority states hold under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, making it harder for them to meet the water quality standards they have set for their own waterbodies. That would set back five decades of progress toward cleaner water, progress to which every sector of society has contributed, and it would affect generations to come.


Fewer Wetlands Protected, and Weaker Review for the Rest

This is yet another attack on wetland protection, and it affects all of us. Not only are fewer wetlands covered by federal protection, but the wetlands that remain covered may not receive the normal permitting review. In practice, that means they aren’t truly protected either.


What You Can Do


You might also like

Celebrating Our Carolina Wetlands

Celebrating 10-years of Wetland Treasures Program

By chase.bergeson • October 16, 2026
A Decade of Celebrating Carolina's Wetland Treasures

Federal Rule Would Strip Protections from Many Wetlands and Streams

By kim.matthews • October 7, 2026
On September 9, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) offering additional ways to define “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). Why this definition matters The WOTUS definition determines which water bodies the federal government can protect under the Clean Water Act. In November 2025, the agencies proposed revisions to bring the definition in line with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA. After taking public comments, they have now put forward further options. The new proposal narrows federal jurisdiction even more, potentially stripping protections from the vast majority of U.S. wetlands and seasonal streams. What our comment letter says The Carolina Wetlands Association is submitting comments opposing the proposal. Our main concerns: It would undermine the Clean Water Act’s purpose. The law’s goal is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. This proposal would severely undercut that goal. The “days of water” test is a poor measure. The proposal decides jurisdiction by how many days a year water is present. That number correlates poorly with a waterway’s ability to carry pollution downstream to the rivers, lakes, and estuaries that would stay protected. Streams dry for as few as 30 days a year could lose protection, and polluters would have an incentive to discharge into them rather than into protected waters. Drinking water is at risk. About 56% of North Carolina’s stream miles feeding public drinking water systems are intermittent, ephemeral, or headwater streams. In South Carolina the figure is 51%. These systems serve 6.6 million people, who would bear higher health risks and treatment costs. Wetlands do critical work. They filter pollutants and nutrients that cause algal blooms, dead zones, and fish kills. Losing that function would also degrade groundwater, which many people drink untreated. The legal reasoning is flawed. We argue the agencies misread the Supreme Court’s language. “Relatively permanent” describes geographic features such as streams with defined beds and banks. The word “continuously” modifies “flowing” and doesn’t limit what counts as relatively permanent. It would be hard to implement. Many affected streams have no data showing how many days they lack surface water. That makes the rule difficult for agencies to administer and leaves landowners unable to tell whether the Clean Water Act applies to their property. The impacts haven’t been analyzed. The agencies should not finalize a rule before measuring the added pollution flowing from newly unprotected waters into those that supply drinking water, or projecting the resulting damage to downstream uses. What you can do Read the SNPRM Submit your comment by October 9, 2026, under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW-2025-0322 . Personal stories about the streams, wetlands, and drinking water you depend on are especially effective. Learn more: read the comments we submitted on the November 2025 version of the rule, many of which still apply.

Meet our new Board Members

By kim.matthews • September 2, 2026
Welcoming New Members to the Carolina Wetlands Association Board