Thomas R. Carper

Removing protection for wetlands is especially shortsighted as climate change continues to fuel more extreme weather events.

As a matter of science, we have heard that wetlands and more than a million miles of streams are inextricably linked to downstream water quality.

I know we can't pass laws to tell water how to flow.

I think it is a critically important piece.

I think we have been locked in a bit of a cycle and not thinking as creatively as we can in the rulemaking process and in how we approach this.

Cooperative federalism enshrined in statute, when correctly applied, will protect our environment and our economy.

As a matter of science, we have heard that wetlands and more than a million miles of streams are inextricably linked to downstream water quality.

I think it is a moral issue, and it is something that we have a moral imperative to make sure we get it right.

the Sackett decision, in my view, has jeopardized nearly a half-century of progress under this bedrock environmental law.

I happen to support strongly, don't fill the void left by the Sackett decision?

Through Sackett, the Supreme Court has weakened one of our bedrock environmental laws, and harms will be felt nationwide.

I think these concerns miss the point. We just had a radical, I think, a sweeping reduction in water protections.