GLYNN COUNTY, Ga. () – Environmental groups in Glynn County claim a developer illegally filled in wetlands on St. Simons Island, and after two court dismissals, they’re pushing to have the case heard again.

“They filed the suit in 2019 alleging that Sea Island company violated the Clean Water Act when they filled a wetland, a half-acre wetland located on their property under a permit that was fraudulently obtained,” Attorney at Butler-Snow Laura Heusel said. “In applying for the permit, they told the [U.S. Army] Corps of Engineers they intended on filling the wetland in order to build a commercial office building in this wetland. Instead, they filled this wetland with landscaping and sodding.”

The lawsuit was filed by the Glynn Environmental Coalition, Center for a Sustainable Coast, and St. Simons Island resident Jane Frazer.

“The Clean Water Act states you cannot discharge a pollutant. A pollutant would include sodding. It would include any kind of filler material you would put in the wetland,” Heusel said.

Last week, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a rehearing to the Eleventh Circuit court.

However, the courts have ruled in favor of Sea Island Acquisition twice already.

First, a lower court ruled the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case and couldn’t prove environmental harm.

A second time, a district court and the Eleventh Circuit federal court ruled that the St. Simon’s wetland did not qualify as a jurisdictional wetland under a 2023 Supreme Court decision.

“In a Supreme Court case called Sackett v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the definition of a jurisdictional water of the U.S,” Heusel said. “Now, a continuous surface connection is required, and we still believe that what was included in our lawsuit showed that Sea Island company’s wetland had a continuous surface connection through a salt marsh that connected to Dunbar Creek.”

Heusel said that while the St. Simon’s wetland can’t necessarily be restored to its original state; environmentalists worry about the precedent this case could set.
“The 11th Circuit makes the test for jurisdictional water under Sackett even more narrow, which could affect the jurisdictional status of other water bodies, especially in coastal systems.”

The Eleventh Circuit is yet to rule if it will grant a rehearing.