I recently published an article in Water and Wastewater News that discusses the confusion that has arisen over EPA and the Army Corp of Engineer's jurisdiction over wetlands under the federal Clean Water Act. The article is entitled Are Wetlands Protected Under CWA? Regulators try to make sense of Supreme Court's response to wetlands cases . When the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the consolidated cases of Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States in 2006, observers hoped the Court would supply much-needed clarification to the federal Clean Water Act’s dominion over wetlands. Instead, the Court could not reach a consensus, and regulation and enforcement of the law has been mired in confusion ever since. The EPA and the Corps of Engineers has subsequently issued guidance on the two agencies' interpetation of the Rapanos decision.
I suggest that regulation alone may not be sufficient to preserve wetlands, but that economic incentives through allowing parties who preserve wetlands to obtain greenhouse gas emission reduction credits, or "carbon credits" may help preserve wetlands more than regulation alone.