Help Stop The Last (and Least) DEP Program,           
          
“Growing Drier,” or SB 10               

            We don’t know why they are called lame ducks.  The legislature shows more energy and moves faster now than they have in the preceding two years.  Maybe the idea is that if you don’t “duck” you will become “lame.”

            One thing that is very lame is the water resources bill that will be introduced Tuesday November 19, SB 10.  First, a couple of myths debunked.  You will hear either that 1) this is a “consensus” bill, or, if you already know better, 2) conservation groups “chose” not to participate and now are taking pot shots at the bill.  Both are very wrong, besides being contradictory.  While RPF was not a direct player in this effort, we have been kept current by groups that were.  Skip to the numbered points at the end if you don’t want the sordid details of the process and simply want the sordid details of the bill. 

            Consensus means that all major interests agree.  Not just some of them.  But not one major conservation or sportsmen’s group supports this bill.  The Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts does, and they too assert it is a consensus bill.  But they hardly speak for the entire conservation community in Pennsylvania, and there’s no telling how many county Conservation Districts would support the bill if they knew what was really in it, and what was kept out of it.

            More importantly, speaking of “consensus” implies that there is an open, honest process  to get all major interests involved and keep them involved.  The effort on the water resources bill does not even begin to meet this criterion.  Conservation interests, who for years have advocated for a comprehensive water resources bill, were invited to a few meetings early on, but were excluded from serious negotiations that took place over the summer between DEP, the Governor’s Office, and the usual industry and business types, self-described as “The Coalition.”  In September, when it was clear that this bill would have to move quickly if it was going to go at all, conservation groups were finally invited back.  But much work had been done so the bill that was up for discussion was already pretty weak.  The best efforts of conservation groups to make this a balanced, comprehensive bill were ignored.  Instead, the bill went from bad to worse.  Generally, if there was a disagreement with “The Coalition,” the call went in favor of “The Coalition’s” position. 

Let’s take a simple example, recognizing water quality concerns within the context of water quantity.  That’s hardly radical or new.  Remember the “Pennsylvania 21^st Century Environment Commission?”  They saw that was the case and said in their final report

            ...we must change our approach to water resource management and better assess the linkage between        water quantity, water quality and aquatic habitat.

 That is just one passage.  Wherever else the report spoke of water quality, it spoke of water quantity, and vice versa.  The Commission included a couple of legislators and was set up by then-Governor Ridge http://www.21stcentury.state.pa.us  , and was hardly a bunch of wild-eyed tree-huggers.

             What about DEP?  What about the much-vaunted “watershed approach?”  As recently as September 23, 2002, DEP Secretary David Hess was telling the State Grange that

 We must look at water holistically and integrate water quantity and water quality considerations into our programs and activities.  We cannot separate water quality and water quantity concerns or concerns for surface and groundwater, because they are all bound together in one watershed system.

 http://www.dep.state.pa.us/update/default.asp?ID=11331    Sounds great, eh?  Secretary Hess, True Friend Of Watersheds. 

           Going along that line, conservation representatives proposed including simple language that said that nothing in the bill would affect DEP’s authority under the Clean Streams Law.  That was predictably opposed by “The Coalition.” They said mentioning other laws in a “planning bill” was not appropriate (although in other places, mentioning other laws in order to limit DEP’s authority was appropriate). 

             The Secretary was present at some of these meetings.  Did he stand up and say “Gee, folks, we must look at water holistically and integrate water quality and quantity considerations in this bill!”  Nah, we don’t need to look holistically all of a sudden.  What about “We cannot separate water quality and water quantity concerns!”  Nope.  Those concerns were separated very neatly in the smoke-filled room and water quality was sent to the “Secretary’s Scrapheap.”  He did not repeat his recent words when the game was on the line.  The bill remained unchanged. 

             Looking at “water holistically” would not just mean that the Clean Streams Law is referenced in passing, but that water quantity planning should take into account water quality and fish and wildlife considerations.   The discussion never went that far because the first baby step wasn’t even taken.  Although the connection between water quality and water quantity can be understood by elementary students, that’s way beyond “The Coalition’s” comfort zone.  But let’s face it, that is not why they get paid. 

             DEP does get paid to consider those things, and for speaking up for all the uses and users of water. When it was time for the Secretary to put his money where his holistic mouth was, he didn’t do it.   The watershed approach is OK when talking about “citizens” and children but for business interests and the General Assembly, it’s all of a sudden too tough of a concept.  Maybe some “Growing Greener” watershed education ought to be done with legislators and their corporate pals. 

 SB 10 becomes the swan song of the Seif/Hess Department of Environmental Protection.  They remain “Open For Business” until the very end.  If this bill passes, we can call it “Growing Drier.” 

             If already know that this is no consensus bill, you may instead hear things like

 Unfortunately certain groups who did not have a compelling case to make resort to catch phrases such as "industry written" or dominated and catering to special interests. It is unfortunate they have chosen not to join in a collaborative process to establish a state water plan in Pennsylvania.

 It doesn’t matter who said it or if they believe it.  What matters with this statement is that it is simply not true and it’s getting repeated in Harrisburg.  The truth is that conservation groups were purposefully excluded from the serious negotiations, and inclusion at a couple of 11^th hour meetings does not mean that a true “collaborative effort” took place or that “consensus” has been reached.  It didn’t and it hasn’t. 

            What is so bad about this bill?  Six major things:  

1.     The lack of a true “watershed approach” in that no mention is made of water quality  (covered above).  This bill may actually reduce DEP’s authority to protect aquatic life and other uses that require that some water be left in streams and rivers.  

2.     The “Statewide Committee” is stacked toward industry, so expect “The Coalition” and pals to be writing the new State Water Plan.   This committee also gets to make recommendations on the regulations for water reporting (a previous provision that might reappear also had the act taking effect immediately, allowing the current administration to fill the slots).   

3.     The new regulations will say that reporting large amounts of water use “may” be required, rather than “shall” be required as the bill had said up until very recently.  Also, whole groups of users can be exempted from reporting requirements.  You probably think that sound planning would require getting a handle on the amount of water used by large water users.  Not if “The Coalition” doesn’t want to report the water they use.    

4.     Local governments are pretty much cut out of the loop, too, as the bill prevents local laws or ordinances that would take into account local considerations.  

5.     And it will all be paid for by Clean Water Fund money!  A slanted plan written by industry for industry will be paid for by money collected from polluters that is supposed to be used for aquatic restoration purposes.  

There is no more time to try to fix this bill; it just has to be opposed, plain and simple.  The State Water Plan does need to be updated, but not at this price. They may tinker with it a bit in order to make it look like they care about conservation concerns (for example, #5 funding), but that is just a tactic.  The fundamental changes that are really needed won’t be made, and this bad bill is destined to produce a bad plan.  

Contact your Representative and Senator THIS WEEK and let them know that you oppose SB 10, (it has also appeared in the House with a different number, and it may be folded into another bill, so just call it “SB 10 or the so-called ‘consensus’ water resources bill”) and give some or all of the reasons above.  Tell them DEP did not represent your interests (or a true “watershed approach”) and no one else that could have was allowed to participate. 

             <<<<END>>>>

return