This case falls into my wheelhouse of expertise and can say that the conservatives are dancing with an unmitigated environmental disaster in the long run.
Wetlands serve MANY purposes-stormwater retention, ecological habitat, water cleansing, flooding mitigation. And wetlands are not just those obvious swamps directly abutting streams and rivers and such. You would be surprised where wetlands exist.
But go ahead and fill them (cause that is what is being argued-to fill wetlands or wetland transition areas) to permit construction.
You will learn that stormwater and surface water don't give an F*** about your political persuasion. You see there is a finite quantity of water that doesn't change too dramatically in toto-sometimes it is in the ground, sometimes in the oceans, sometimes in the air, sometimes in clouds. But generally speaking, that volume doesn't vary too much-depends on how much water people have been drinking.
And here is the kicker if you fill an area where water is that water will go elsewhere. That is a fundamental law of physics. You can't get around it.
So, you fill wetlands, even the wetlands remote from a water body, not obvious ones and what happens? The water in that wetland does not magically disappear, it MOVES and the water that fed the wetlands is diverted around the wetlands. So, the downstream water body receives MORE water, quicker, with less filtering. That is an immutable fact. So, the downstream water body receives MORE water and more pollutants and get this MORE silt, cause the wetlands was preventing erosion (another concept forgotten by lawyers). So, the downstream water body fills up faster resulting more flooding.
So, yeah, filling wetlands is a really bad idea.
Problem is that in many areas buildable virgin land is dwindling-you know from population growth and less attractive land is eyed for development, but again- BAD IDEA