Wetlands Protection and Restoration Act
Senate Bill 555, the Wetlands Protection and Restoration Act, would create a new Wetlands Restoration and Protection Fund within the Department of Environmental Quality and appropriate $15 million in recurring General Fund money for fiscal year 2025-26. The fund could support wetland restoration projects, conservation easements, public education about wetlands, volunteer restoration efforts, and enforcement of wetland protection laws. The bill also reserves $5 million of the appropriation for wetland monitoring and research, with the Department required to work with stakeholders and research institutions and report annually on fund activity, project outcomes, and research findings.
The bill also changes North Carolina law governing wetlands by repealing two prior statutory provisions and revising the definitions of “isolated wetlands,” “waters,” and “wetland” in G.S. 143-212. In particular, it would restore state-level protection for certain isolated wetlands that lost federal protection after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA. The revised definitions would make isolated wetlands part of “waters of the State” for regulatory purposes, while excluding certain man-made ditches and ponds used for stormwater management or other artificial isolated ponds.
The bill would expand the Department of Environmental Quality’s authority and resources to protect wetlands, especially isolated wetlands, by creating a dedicated funding stream and by broadening state statutory coverage of wetlands under Chapter 143. It would likely increase permitting, enforcement, monitoring, and conservation activity affecting landowners, developers, local governments, and environmental regulators, and it could influence how North Carolina fills the regulatory gap left by the Sackett decision. The act would take effect immediately upon becoming law except for the appropriation, which begins July 1, 2025.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears supportive and proactive toward wetland conservation. The bill’s framing emphasizes restoration, public education, scientific monitoring, and state-level protection, suggesting an environmental protection focus rather than a deregulatory one. No recorded opposition, amendments, or vote history is provided here to indicate a divided reception.
The main likely point of contention is the bill’s expansion of state wetland regulation after Sackett v. EPA, which could be viewed by supporters as necessary to protect vulnerable ecosystems and by critics as an increase in regulatory burden on property owners, agriculture, infrastructure, and development projects. Another possible area of debate is the recurring $15 million appropriation and the use of public funds for enforcement, research, and conservation easements. The bill also narrows the scope of excluded man-made features, which may raise questions about how isolated wetlands are identified and which water bodies remain regulated.