Environmental groups — among them the Harpeth Conservancy, Sierra Club, Protect Our Aquifers and Southern Environmental Law Center — have urged lawmakers to reject the plan. Wetlands absorb rain and runoff to avert flooding, filter water of pollutants, replenish water supplies and provide habitat to fish and fowl. Allowing developers to destroy wetlands would eliminate those critical functions even as Tennessee has experienced its wettest years in recorded history since 2019.
The Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, which responds to flooding disasters, along with TDEC have both expressed concerns about the bill.
Ignorance of geomorphology and ecosystem processes
The bill would create separate categories of wetland in Tennessee, giving developers free rein to build on “low-quality” wetlands, regardless of size and “moderate quality” wetlands of up to 1 acre without a state permit or requirement to pay fees. The bill applies only to so-called “isolated wetlands” that have no obvious surface connection to lakes, rivers or streams.
According to environmental groups, wetlands are rarely isolated and often have underground connections to other water sources.
The state’s largest share of impacted wetlands lie in west Tennessee, where a building boom is taking place ahead of Ford Motor Company’s 2025 opening of its $5.6 billion BlueOval City electric truck plant.
Developers in the region have become the latest power players in Tennessee political spending, forming the Build Tennessee PAC, which was the fourth largest spender in the months leading up to this year’s legislative session. Vaughan runs his own real estate and development firm in west Tennessee. He has denied that he stands to gain financially from his bill, telling lawmakers his business involves serving as a consultant to developers. He is likely to make less money if there are fewer hurdles he has to help clients overcome in developing on properties containing wetlands, Vaughan said.
The bill is likely to be heard again next week in the House Finance Ways and Means Committee. A Senate agricultural committee that voted to send the bill to be studied over the summer would have to reverse that action and rehear the bill for it to have a chance at passage in the current legislative session.