Idaho residents Michael and Chantell Sackett got a shock from the Environmental Protection Agency when they began backfilling a lot with dirt to build a new home.

Their site contained wetlands, the EPA declared, and their backfilling violated the Clean Water Act, which protects “the waters of the United States” from pollution. Sure enough, the Sacketts’ wetlands were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which flowed into the much-larger Priest Lake, putting it under EPA jurisdiction via an interpretation of the law that prevailed for decades.

Then along came the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Samuel Alito and four other conservative justices had been itching to rewrite environmental regulations. The Sackett case, decided in 2023 by a 5-4 vote (with one conservative justice, Brett Kavanaugh, dissenting on the main issue), tossed out a standard supported by the EPA, Army Corps of Engineers and multiple administrations.

Much of the nation’s wetlands that previously enjoyed federal protection suddenly were vulnerable. Some states, including Michigan, were backstopped by their own laws that duplicated at least part of the federal protection.

But not Illinois.

The Land of Lincoln’s wetlands remain mostly unprotected, and intense lobbying from a coalition of farming and business groups has succeeded so far in keeping it that way, overcoming equally intense lobbying from environmental and conservation groups.

Something should be done. But restoring the same protections that wetlands enjoyed under the EPA is complicated, requiring a significant state investment to expand its oversight — and potentially creating costs for farmers and other landowners.

What’s needed is a thoughtful discussion and, for now, both sides are dug in. We think the environmentalists have a strong case, and Illinois’ landowners opposing strict new rules protecting wetlands need to think about compromising before the General Assembly overrides their interests.

Every resident of Illinois has an interest in protecting natural habitats that support game fish and migratory birds, among other beloved creatures. But the wetlands issue isn’t solely about tree-hugging, and that’s what makes it so compelling.

The state’s wetlands play a critical role in flood control, for instance. Averting wet basements and swamped roadways is one reason why Cook County and four other counties in the Chicago area have passed wetland protections specific to their jurisdictions.

Given the prevalence of heavy rainstorms as the climate warms, this flood control is becoming ever more essential. As it stands, many of the flood-prone areas along the state’s major rivers have no protection for wetlands that help soak up downpours today.

Wetlands also serve as natural filters and reservoirs. Acting like sponges, they capture water and slowly release it, sustaining streams and lakes during dry periods and replenishing underground water tables. That includes the aquifers that much of the state depends on for drinking water.

Effectively, they are a natural form of infrastructure. To our minds, the strongest argument for protecting them is that, if they go away, we’ll have to build man-made structures to perform the same functions.

“This is a long-term, slow-burn sort of thing,” Paul Botts, president of The Wetlands Initiative, told us in a recent meeting we had with supporters of the proposed Wetlands Protection Act, which would establish a state permitting process for protecting wetlands. “Down the road, we’ll have to spend a lot of money, or our descendants will, replacing those values.”

About 563,000 acres of Illinois wetlands lie outside any county, state or federal protection, according to a research study cited by environmental lobbyists. That sure sounds like a lot of land. But it’s a drop in the bucket compared with the 36 million acres that make up the state’s entire land mass, with three-fourths of it devoted to farming.

The farm lobby, however, has objected to restoring the protection lost in the Sackett decision as if it’s an existential threat. The state bill favored by environmentalists is too broad and burdensome, they say, and the expanded oversight it requires would cost Illinois several million dollars a year.

We get it: Expanding state bureaucracy with new rules could indeed complicate life for the state’s landowners. But the Sackett decision left a gap that cannot continue to go unfilled. Illinois’ wetlands deserve the same protections they had for decades under the EPA — or at least close to the same.

It’s worth noting that an activist Supreme Court can be expected to continue foisting new responsibilities onto the states by overturning settled law governing federal regulation — as in the 2024 “Chevron Deference” decision that significantly limits the power of federal agencies. In other cases, the court has reinforced federal powers over the states, making this a challenging time for state lawmakers across the country.

For years, Illinois counted on the feds to take the lead in curbing water pollution. These days, the state needs to act when court rulings upend long-standing practices and undermine compelling public interests.

The proposed Wetlands Protection Act is a good starting point for Illinois to respond to the Sackett case. Tweaking it to provide clear, reasonable rules for landowners makes sense. Standing by while a vulnerable resource goes unprotected is reckless and costly.

Illinois needs its wetlands, now and into the future.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.