More Green Masks

A couple of weeks ago we ran a PU entitled "The Man In The Green Mask" describing how Gov. Ridge's Department of Environmental Protection actually reduced protection given to the waters of National and State Parks, at the same time as trumpeting how protective their regulations were. Unfortunately, Gov. Ridge isn't the only one trying to dismantle environmental protection and have the audacity to call it the opposite. These types are all too common in Harrisburg.

Unfortunately there is no "Truth In Labeling" law for government. We have to rely on watchdogs to sniff these folks out, and re-label their efforts. One of the more celebrated efforts dealt with a bill in Congress a couple of years ago, HR 961, which would have gutted the Clean Water Act. Well, it didn't take too long for someone to give it a more accurate label, the "Dirty Water Act." (Incidentally, that bill was introduced by Rep. Bud Shuster, R-PA (9th District). Rep. Shuster has kind of gone through a nomenclature metamorphosis of his own. In the official roster of the 106th Congress, he is listed as "Bud Shuster." When he was first elected (and it is still on his official Congressional bio), he was "E.G. Shuster." Folks from central PA tell PU that the "E" stands for "Elmer." Doesn't matter to us what he wants to call himself--he hasn't been a "bud" to the environment. Given his consistent anti-environmental stands, this rose by any other name would probably be as thorny.) And remember DEP's "Regulatory Basics Initiative?" A past PU referred to it as the "Roll Back Initiative" because of it's primary mission to take our regulations down to the minimum Federal level.

Anyway, we have a couple of additional folks inside the Harrisburg beltway that qualify for their own green mask. And in case you think we are constantly picking on the Ridge administration, these masqueraders are from the General Assembly.

First off, we have Rep. Jim Lynch R-65. He has re- introduced a bill into the legislature that PU has reported on before [ http://www.rayproffitt.org/pu/pu020599.htm ] (also take a look at this PU: [( http://www.rayproffitt.org/pu/pu032798.htm ) "What Mr. Hess is Not Telling You, Part 1]. Dave Hess at DEP made a big deal of a Democratic representative's anti-citizen monitoring efforts. We asked if he was going to show the same consideration to anti-environmental efforts made by Republicans. (He hasn't so far). The "Special Protection" program, as regular readers of PU know, has been quite controversial the past couple of years. DEP sponsored a "stakeholders process" on the topic and extractive industries (e.g., coal and oil) had a number of seats at the table where they made loud demands for a weak program. After the process broke down without an agreement in 1995, we saw Rep. Lynch's first effort to write the regressive positions of extractive industries into law.

We should point out that this latest version does not include many of the objectionable provisions found in the earlier versions. The basic purpose has not changed, however. Although the bill says it is for "[p]roviding for designation and conservation of exceptional value waters," its actual purpose is quite different. The issue is water quality of the streams and rivers that flow through private lands. Rep. Lynch's bill would, in most cases, prohibit the designation of any stream or watershed as exceptional value if it flows through private lands. A stream or watershed could only be exceptional value if

1) it first qualified for the "high quality" designation

2) could be considered an "outstanding national, State or regional resource," and

3) "no more than 10% of the land surface area of the affected watershed is developed" ("developed" is very conveniently undefined in the bill).

The first two requirements are not very different from the past and proposed "Exceptional Value" programs of DEP. It is not as if every stream in the state can qualify. In fact, only about 1,500 miles of stream out of 83,000 total miles are currently designated as Exceptional Value waters. The third requirement, however, is based on the belief that we shouldn't make more than a minimal effort to protect water quality where the least amount of "development" has already happened.

If a water is designated as "exceptional value," then its water quality must be maintained. Generally, that does not mean that existing facilities need do anything different, but future facilities may have increased treatment requirements over and above the usual DEP practice of automatically letting everyone degrade our waters down to the minimum standards. To Rep. Lynch and his sunset industry friends, increased treatment means less profit. Making the maximum profit off one's land is a property right. Therefore, regulations that go beyond the bare minimum unreasonably "takes" one's property.

They might argue that their enterprises are so marginally profitable that any increased costs prevents them from undertaking their extractive activity in the first place. But that is the nature of speculating in risky enterprises. If another Middle Eastern oil embargo were to take place, perhaps Pennsylvania crude would be profitable even with increased treatment. If some technological breakthrough halves the price of a barrel of oil, Pennsylvania is likely finished as an oil producer. Rep. Lynch can even introduce a bill exempting the industry from all requirements. Besides being illegal, it wouldn't do any good. We shouldn't continually lower our environmental protection standards.

Rep. Lynch's bill represents a fundamental misreading of the U.S and Pennsylvania Constitutions, the Federal Clean Water Act, and state Clean Streams Law. Society has the right and obligation to protect natural resources for ourselves and for future generations. Waters flowing through private land should be protected on the merits of the resource. Contact Rep. Lynch at [231 Pennsylvania Ave. West, Warren, PA, 16365] and tell him so.

Next up is Senator William Slocum R-Warren County. He was one of the main critics of the PA Fish and Boat Commission's recent revision of the list of threatened and endangered fish list [ http://www.rayproffitt.org/pu/pu020599.htm   http://www.rayproffitt.org/pu/pu032399.htm ]. Senator Slocum didn't like the fact that most of the fish are found in northwestern Pennsylvania. Gee, it's too bad that his region of the State is cursed with streams and rivers that harbor rare aquatic life. Sen. Slocum apparently would rather see the waters ravaged by unfettered agriculture, mining and development that was able to decimate aquatic life in the rest of Pennsylvania before passage of pesky environmental protection laws. Apparently fancying himself an ecologist, he admonished the PFBC staff testifying before his committee to remember that "humans are at the top of the food chain." Sen. Slocum also questioned the need for the revision, since he claimed that water quality was better than ever.

He should know about water quality. The Borough of Youngsville, where Sen. Slocum worked as borough manager and borough foreman before his election to the State Senate, was fined $75,000 by DEP last fall for discharge permit violations that occurred during Slocum's watch (did any reader pick that up in DEP's Update?). Investigators found raw sewage coating the stream downstream of the borough's discharge, and levels of fecal bacteria 300 times the state's limits. Don't know about you, but we here at PU figure that DEP doesn't go around fining boroughs for violations that happened while a now-State Senator was in charge, especially when they are of the same party--unless the violations were really, REALLY bad! Since the fine, however, Sen. Slocum himself has been indicted by a Federal grand jury on related conspiracy charges (AP, July 16, 1999). Now the Senator has yet to have his day in court, but if convicted and incarcerated, he may have a chance to practice some more "ecology" and observe the "humans at the top of the food chain" in a Federal prison. PU will keep you posted as to whether eventually the Senator "swims with the sharks."

Just before the Senator's indictment was announced, the Commissioners on the PFBC voted 9-1 in favor of the new list (the lone holdout was from Slocum's area). Visit the PFBC site at [ http://www.fish.state.pa.us ] for more info.

Sen. Slocum can be reached at 231 Pennsylvania Ave. West, Warren, Pa. 16365. This is not a mistake Rep. Lynch and Sen. Slocum have offices in the same building, (must be something in the water).

It wouldn't hurt to also let your own representatives in the General Assembly know that you pay attention to environmental issues like clean water and conserving our natural heritage, and that you hold them to a higher standard than that shown by Rep. Lynch and Sen. Slocum.

<<<<END>>>>

return