Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Should the Legislature loosen restrictions that protect wetlands?
Wetlands are remarkable gifts of nature: They absorb floodwaters, purify polluted runoff and provide home for wildlife.
Since the founding of Indiana, we have unfortunately drained about 85% of our wetlands. Only recently have we fully come to grips with how extraordinary wetlands are. The progress our state has made in the last two decades in protecting wetlands would be seriously undermined by Senate Bill 389, which eliminates Indiana’s landmark wetlands law. And with the wiping away of this law, Indiana would wipe out protections for as much as 90% of the wetlands in our state.
I want to offer you three reasons to contact your state representative to oppose this bill:
SB 389 would create a whole host of costly problems for our state.
If this bill passes, many of the wetlands governed by state law run the risk of being filled in. That will exacerbate flooding problems in Indiana—which hurts farmers, homeowners and businesses. SB 389 would also result in reduced water purification and groundwater recharge that wetlands provide, reducing the productivity of some drinking-water wells and increasing the cost of drinking-water treatment.
Note that the proponents of SB 389 claim farmers are hurt under existing law, but farming practices and wet spots on farmland are exempt. Backers also claim that wetland permits are increasing housing costs, yet an average of only 18 wetland permits are issued per year in the entire state—only a portion of which are for housing.
SB 389 would further fragment Indiana’s natural world, which is bad for wildlife and ultimately bad for those of us who enjoy time in the outdoors.
Our state-protected wetlands are often a few acres in size but they’re crucial parts of a vast, interconnected system that helps clean our lakes and rivers and serves as habitat for nearly 80 species under greatest threat, including migratory birds and waterfowl.
In Indiana, we need to increase nature areas under protection rather than the opposite: Just 4% of Indiana’s land is set aside for nature, in contrast to Wisconsin’s 18% and Michigan’s 28%. This matters not only for the millions of Hoosiers who love the outdoors, but also for the 140,000 Hoosiers employed in our outdoor recreation sector.
SB 389 would send a damaging message to people, at whatever age, about our state.
There’s ample research to show that people are drawn to states that have great environmental features. The No. 1 fear I hear from our members is that their children will leave Indiana because we can’t compete with ocean coastlines and mountains.
Yes, Indiana has amazing jewels of nature, but what signal are we sending when the Indiana General Assembly wants to wipe out state protections for the second-most-abundant natural ecosystem in our state, wetlands?
SB 389 is opposed by 50+ Indiana conservation and environmental groups. I hope that many sustainable-minded businesses, and readers like you, will reach out to your state representative in opposition.•
__________
Kharbanda is executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council, a statewide not-for-profit whose staff and members work to protect land and water, improve environmental health, and foster a sustainable economy. Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.
Click here for more Forefront columns.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
I live on White River for over 20 years. i have seen the change in the flow with silting caused by the river not having the divine use of wetlands. White River, named by native Indians, can no longer be called “White”. It was white because of the lovely lime stone bottom, always cleaned by flowing water. There are plenty of people who enjoy White River who would be glad to give the developers a trip so they can see the damage. Don’t tell me the farmers want the change…..they understand land and water!