And Now A Word From Our Sponsor

Someone recently pointed out to me that the first PU was distributed on January 31, 1997, so with today's edition, PU is three years old! In that time, we have covered a lot of topics with a lot of words. Our sources are sometimes citizen activists eager for their stories and their groups' identities to be known; other times, we rely on agency staff that have to ask for anonymity in order to be safe from retaliation (yes, it still happens). And still other times, our main source is just ourselves: members of the Raymond Proffitt Foundation <http://www.rayproffitt.org>, citizen activists like many others of you out there. We report on issues we are working on, and our opinion of other environmental news and events out there.

Who are "we," many of you may be asking. Who is the "Raymond Proffitt Foundation" and what do "we" stand for? We have a formal mission statement on our web site <http://www.rayproffitt.org>, and we also have a shorter version on our home page, which really sums up what we are about:

The Raymond Proffitt Foundation is a public interest non-profit organization concerned with the enforcement of environmental protection laws. It helps individuals and grassroots organizations understand and change government inaction to protect the environment, frequently solving problems through discussion with agency officials. When discussion fails, however, the Foundation will file citizen lawsuits against government, companies or individuals violating the law.

No doubt, some of you are probably uncomfortable with some (or all) of the things mentioned in that statement. For some, "enforcement" is a dirty word. Others may think "government inaction" is harsh or inaccurate. And "lawsuits" is hardly on anyone's list of favorite words (otherwise, why do we keep hearing so many lawyer jokes?). For still others, it smacks of outdated techniques, such as "command and control."

Don't get us wrong. We prefer to work things out long before a lawsuit is filed. Litigation is seldom easy, even for the winners, and almost always very long. We would like to come to a mutually acceptable agreement and move on. We do have, however, at least one minimum, non- negotiable condition that must be in any settlement where our signatures are wanted. But don't fear, it is a very simple condition.

Obey the law.

We hear all kinds of noise coming from business interests how government agencies give themselves all kinds of powers beyond the legislation that Congress or the General Assembly has passed. This pressure is not only aimed at the public and elected officials, but sends a powerful message to the agencies themselves: back off or your life will be miserable.

Unfortunately, these propaganda campaigns work all too well. Politicians make hay by painting environmental agencies as out of control. What happens then? The agencies go way too far in the other direction, failing to uphold the environmental protection laws, and failing to uphold the public trust. Well, just call us "The Other Guys." Agencies have to be held accountable to the public, and that is a two-way street. Agencies don't have the discretion they often claim to have when it comes to minimum environmental protection. They use "discretion" to justify why they cave to the pressure brought to bear by industries and business interests that would rather provide less than the minimum environmental protection provided for in law.

Take for instance, the long-running battle over the "antidegradation" regulation in Pennsylvania (regular PU readers, please bear with me; I'll make this short!). The federal regulation that implements the appropriate sections of the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1983, and states were supposed to have something at least as protective as the federal. Pennsylvania did not have an adequate regulation; EPA said so again and again in reviews. But they failed to do anything about it, although other parts of the regulation required them to take action. A court ordered EPA to act after RPF sued- -and won--twice. EPA finally did take action, enacting an adequate (minimum) regulation for the stubborn state.

Now, Pennsylvania has passed regulations, hoping to have the federal regulation removed. But the EQB made a point (after being asked by extractive industries) to strip language protecting waters of National and State Parks (and on the way, DEP also misrepresented the views of RPF and other conservation groups to the EQB). Those protections are supposed to be the regulation, no ifs ands or buts. EPA was poised to approve the state's submittal, despite the absence of language protecting Park waters, until RPF filed a 60-day notice to sue. We hope we can resolve this but will go to court if necessary to ensure EPA and Pennsylvania give our waters the minimum protection required by law. If you are reading this, Region 3 of EPA, here's our uncomplicated bottom line:

The language protecting Parks needs to be in Pennsylvania's regulation. Obey the law.

We are sometimes accused of being behind the curve, that the "new" environmentalism is based on partnerships and working together. We will certainly work with anyone wishing to advance environmental progress, including business interests. New ideas, innovative approaches, partnerships--all of these are needed. But not if they are done at the expense of the minimum protection of the public's resources. Meet the requirements of the law, and then try all the innovation you like. If there is some way we can help, we will. But don't ask us to be "partners" in some endeavor that reduces protection and perverts the law.

So many Pollution Updates deal with this topic. Besides the issues that RPF is directly working on, such as antidegradation, we report on various attempts by government to disregard the law. Our first PU was about an unannounced change in DEP policy to require dam permits whenever a dam was sold. The new permit was a way to get some minimum release from the reservoir, ensuring that water would actually be in a stream much more of the time. Some company didn't want to release water from some dams it had recently purchased, and called up the Governor. That leads DEP to decide that new permits won't be needed anymore. So much for the letter and spirit of the Clean Streams Law and the Clean Water Act. Some conservationists working on a completely different dam issue found out about this unadvertised change (DEP wasn't telling anyone but dam permit holders and potential buyers) and were able to get DEP to partially back-pedal. We reported on it hoping the publicity would help their cause.

And we know Pollution Update is not a big hit for everyone, either. Our language and tone are pretty strong sometimes. We know that words can be powerful. In the late 19th century, the United States and Britain almost went to war over an exchange of diplomatic notes that were not very diplomatic. But the US Secretary of State defended his language on the basis of Britain's very real disregard of the US. In a note to Britain, said the Secretary, "only words the equivalent of blows would be effective." It seems to us that government agencies often disregard the very laws they are supposed to be enforcing, and therefore disregard the public that they are suppose to be serving. And that requires, in our opinion, some pretty strong language, proportional to the outrage.

And sometimes PU is a little rough or choppy, or doesn't flow as well as your typical opinion or news piece. That's because we are unpaid activists, banging away on keyboards, writing these things or using E-mail or the web to get the facts. Sometimes we're on long phone conversations. And much of this takes place late at night (like this one!), because we have lives to lead as well. So bear with us and don't hesitate to follow up any PU with questions, and we will do are best.

Please visit RPF's website and bookmark us. All the PU's are there along with other news and useful environmental links. Please consider joining RPF if you find yourself in agreement with our views. We are unpaid activists but RPF has expenses such as phone bills, Internet time, and computer equipment. Joining RPF will increase the strength of all of us, present and new members alike. We will also consider affiliating with similarly-minded conservation groups.

And if you have story ideas, or want to write one, let us know! We are pretty pleased that PU has had staying power, and has attracted the attention it has so far. We didn't know where it was going when we started but it has been a fun journey so far. Thanks to all of you conservation activists and groups that have helped make PU a success!

<http://www.rayproffitt.org>

<<<<END>>>>

return