DOUBLE  STANDARDS
PENNSYLVANIA  STYLE

This coyness lady, would be no crime
Had we but World enough, and time
                                       -Marvell

There's a double standard at work in Harrisburg these days. The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission recently published a proposed list of threatened and endangered fish species. They invited public comment. A number of groups, notably the Pennsylvania Coal Association, the Chamber of Business and Industry, and the Pennsylvania Builders Association, complained that the comment period should be extended, and that the PFBC should publish the methodology that they used to determine the list. Based on these requests, the PFBC has extended the public comment period. They are also going to hold a public information meeting with a question and answer session, and a public hearing after the information meeting (for details: http://www.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/).

Compare that to the Environmental Quality Board. In August, they published a much more extensive regulatory package of changes to water quality regulation. While the PFBC's list was about three pages in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, the EQB published over 50 pages of regulatory changes, which were developed by the Department of Environmental Protection. To add to that, DEP published notice of changes to the "water quality toxics management strategy," which is a "statement of policy" and does not have to go through the EQB. That minor "statement of policy" merely regulates how much poison can be dumped into our waters.

Shortly after the EQB and DEP publications, conservation groups asked the EQB (through DEP) to extend the public comment period and hold public information meetings on both the regulation and the "toxics strategy" changes. The groups have followed up their requests with letters. Neither DEP nor the EQB has replied to the conservation groups requests. The EQB and DEP have held three public hearings across the state to take testimony, but if you wanted to learn more about the proposal before the hearings, you were out of luck. It's only 50+ pages of highly technical regulations; certainly any PhD. that works with it everyday can figure it out.

The proposal is part of the "Regulatory Basics Initiative" which PU has commented on in the past (http://www.rayproffitt.org/pu/pu092998.htm). Under the guise of streamlining, DEP examined all their regulations and are now moving to get rid of those that are more stringent than the federal minimum regulations. This "Roll Back Initiative" is an opportunity for polluting industries to get rid of regulations that they don't like. They have had plenty of input into the proposed regulations. Governor Ridge ran in 1994 saying we needed no regulations more stringent than the federal minimum standards, and his appointee DEP Secretary James Seif was an enthusiastic executer of that promise.

From early on in the Roll Back Initiative, DEP has been soliciting input from polluters on how the regulations can be made better for them. However, in a late move, DEP has also called these regulatory changes their "Triennial Review" of Pennsylvania's Water Quality Standards. Every three years the states are required to take a look at their water quality standards, the basis for clean water. DEP has not reviewed the Standards, however, with the idea of making them better for our lakes and streams, which is what they are supposed to do--but instead they have just reviewed them to "streamline" them. In other words, make them better for business.

The point here is the fact that in Harrisburg, when special interest business associations with big staffs ask for extensions of the public comment period, state agencies listen. This is no knock on the PFBC. When anyone asks for a little more time and information on some state action that could affect them, the responsible thing to do is give them the time. Very likely if conservation groups had asked the PFBC for more time to comment, it would have been granted.

When public participation is the issue, state agencies should be inclusive. If they are to err, they should err on the side of more participation, not less.

But with DEP and the EQB, that isn't the way it works. Their customers are those types that have already had extensive input into the Roll Back Initiative. DEP has been talking to groups like the coal mining companies, the builders, and the Chamber of Business and Industry for three years and they have already told DEP what they want in this Roll Back Initiative. Thus, in DEP's eyes, there is no need for public information hearings. DEP already has all the "public" input it needs. When conservation and citizens' groups need more time, they are ignored.

It is not too late. Citizens that need more time to comment on the water quality regulations should send an e-mail message to:

DEP Secretary Seif at Seif.James@A1.DEP.STATE.PA.US

Senator Madigan at rmadigan@pasen.gov

Senator Musto at musto@dem.pasen.gov

Representative Reber, phone 717-787-2924 or 610-326-9563

Representative George at cgeorge@pahouse.net

While you are participating in protecting Pennsylvania's resources, check out the PFBC's list of threatened and endangered fish (http://www.state/pa.us/Fish/endannot.htm) and send a message to them supporting protection of Pennsylvania's rare aquatic resources. The miners and builders have not asked for more time for nothing. They aren't going to find much merit in protecting fish.

And a final word for DEP: If you think that you can just slip a Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards past the citizens of Pennsylvania, a short history lesson:

The Raymond Proffitt Foundation has successfully sued the Environmental Protection Agency in the past for not exercising proper oversight of Pennsylvania's Water Quality Standards. Federal standards are now in place for Pennsylvania because DEP would not do its job. We will observe EPA's action on this bogus Triennial Review.

<<<<END>>>>

return