"STOPPER" Newsletter of the Raymond Proffitt Foundation
Winter 1997
EPA PROMULGATES ANTIDEGRADATION LAW FOR PENNSYLVANIA
by John Wilmer, Legal Counsel
On January 8, 1997 EPA promulgated new water quality standards for Pennsylvania that meet minimum requirements of federal law. This antidegradation law requires the state to protect existing uses of waters, and to protect waters of high quality and waters that contain outstanding national resources. Its purpose is to keep clean waters clean.
EPA promulgated these regulations as a direct result of several successful lawsuits filed by the Raymond Proffitt Foundation, a nonprofit environmental organization located in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, and with the active support of the Sierra Club. The lawsuits began over four years ago and culminated with a decision by Judge Bechtle of the United States Federal District Court. On April 16, 1996 he found EPA in violation of laws that require the agency to enforce federal laws against states when their water quality standards do not meet minimum federal requirements.
Pennsylvania, for over a decade and a half, failed to have an antidegradation standard that met minimum federal requirements. The EPA, which had the power and the duty to require states to comply with this law, did nothing. The federal court recognized EPA’s dilatory conduct and ordered the agency to prepare and publish water quality standards for Pennsylvania. The Court rightly noted that the lack of these water quality standards had caused environmental harm to Pennsylvania’s waters.
Joe Turner, Co-Chairman of Sierra’s Water Resources Committee, said that "while I am happy with the outcome, I am still amazed that it took court action to force both EPA and Pennsylvania to obey their own laws. The environmental agencies should be enforcing the law, not breaking it themselves."
Pennsylvania’s reaction was to submit an anemic and confused version of the antidegradation regulations to the Environmental Quality Board on January 21, 1997. The Commonwealth hopes to eventually present its package to the EPA by June. If EPA were to approve the submission then the proposed regulations would replace the federal regulations now in force.
The state’s version, ironically, is far more complex and confusing than the few sentences it hopes to replace. This is from the government that wants to simplify and reduce the terrible burden of regulation that is supposedly driving industry from Pennsylvania. The federal language now in force is composed of three paragraphs on less than one page. Pennsylvania’s purported substitute is seventeen pages long.
Worse than the length of this proposal is its content. Everything that the federal regulations corrected, Pennsylvania wants to take away. Tier 1, which simply protects the existing uses of waterways, would provide such protection only after DEP decided what those existing uses were. This is the same lack of protection, wearing different clothes, that the EPA disapproved three years ago. Tier 2, which classifies and protects high quality streams, would require so much proof to demonstrate water quality that current high quality streams would no longer qualify. And DEP still refuses to accept the federal requirements for our best streams, Tier 3.
There will be a 60-day public comment period, with a public hearing. The DEP had originally proposed no public hearing, but the Environmental Quality Board did not agree.
The only thing that will stop the mean DEP Green-Destroying Machine is you. When the public comment period opens you must tell our government that you want the federal regulations to stay in effect.
For further information about the public comment period and requirements, contact Edward R. Brezina, Chief, Division of Assessment and Standards, Bureau of Water Quality Management, 10th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building, P.O. Box 8465, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17105, (717) 787-9637.
* * *
SAMPLE LETTER
Mr. James Seif, Chairman
Environmental Quality Board
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Dear Mr. Seif:
I am writing to express my disappointment with the proposed antidegradation regulations, adopted by the EQB as proposed rules on January 21, 1997. The regulations do not meet the minimum Federal requirments, and are in fact weaker than the program currently in place. They will not protect Pennsylvania’s waters from degradation.
Existing uses should be protected unconditionally, as in the Federal regulation, not after a DEP "review of technical data."
High Quality protection should be extended to all streams where water chemistry is better than standards. The biology test is not mandated by Federal regulation. A stream might fail the biology test because one parameter is in violation. EPA stated in its final rule that a violation of one parameter should not disqualify a stream from High Quality protection. Therefore, this rule with a chemistry and biology test cannot be approved by EPA. Overall, streams have less chance to become High Quality under this program than under the current program.
Streams also have less ways to become Exceptional Value than they do under the current program, and despite the numerous "examples" in the definition, there is only one way for a stream to become EV. DEP’s removal of considering Pennsylvania and US endangered species is especially disturbing, as is the removal of any consideration of the public ownership of the land. DEP also did not address EPA’s concerns with discharges into ONRWs.
DEP clearly sided with polluters in this proposal, and ignored the bulk of the public comments that they solicited after their May 1996 draft proposal. These proposed regulations should be rejected, and a new proposal prepared and voted on as proposed rulemaking. This proposal is beyond repair. Start protecting our waters as you are paid to do!
Sincerely yours,
* * *
A Few Facts on Fluoride by Lynn Landes
Less than 2% of Western Europe is fluoridated. Most developed countries have banned fluoridated water, such as Germany and Japan. The United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the British Islands are approximately 50-70 % fluoridated. It is reported that this figure has remained essentially unchanged for the last decade.
In the 1950’s the U.S. government began promoting the fluoridation of the municipal water system. Fluoridation has always encountered considerable opposition from those who considered the permanent, harmful, and serious, side effects unacceptable .
Although some fluoridated water is "naturally" occurring, "commercial" fluoride that is added to fluoridate municipal water systems, is a hazardous waste by-product of such industries as the aluminum, uranium, and phosphate fertilizer industries, to mention a few.
* * *
Let Congress Know What You Think of Dirty Water!
The environment, especially Clean Water, was an important election issue in 1996. Some of the strongest advocates of clean water won with the help of voters dismayed with the polluters’ influence in the 104th Congress. Likewise, some of the polluters’ best friends went down in flames.
We can expect the polluters and their lobbyists and their campaign dollars to still have considerable influence in the new Congress. All we have are numbers. Those numbers don’t count if we don’t make ourselves be heard. We need to let Congress know that we are still here, and are watching them.
One of the worst attempts at environmental rollback in recent years was H.R. 961, the "Dirty Water Act," sponsored by Rep Bud Shuster of central Pennsylvania. This bill will return in the 105th Congress, with subtle changes in an attempt to make it more palatable. There were also attempts to rollback wetland protection; we can expect those to re-surface as well.
Imagine you have a servant. If you don’t give him or her instructions, it’s hardly their fault that they don’t do what you wish! Well, our representatives are our servants, and now is the time to tell them: clean water and wetlands protection are important to you! It doesn’t have to be long or elaborate, or even typewritten. Take a few minutes and jot down your thoughts.
Here’s a suggested letter. Feel free to modify as you wish. The important thing is to WRITE!
The Honorable __________________
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative __________:
Clean water is important to me and I hope it is to you. We have a right to clean water because water polluted by toxic chemicals threatens our health, our families, our kids, and our planet. All of us have to do our part, but companies that produce pollution have a responsibility to take care of it, not dump it in the rivers to become someone else’s problem. Clean water brings a healthy economy because companies won’t locate where the water is dirty.
Runoff from farms and streets needs to be controlled, too, as the "non-point" source pollution is the biggest source.
Likewise, wetlands are in need of protection, because they benefit all of us. They prevent pollution and fooding, and offer sanctuary for fish and wildlife. Filling a wetland destroys these functions.
Our agencies that protect our water need adequate funding. The last Congress tried a direct assault on clean water, and when that failed, they tried to reduce funding for the repsonsible agencies. That was short-sighted. Of each federal tax dollar, only four-tenths of one cent is spent on the environment! I read that one company took $10 billion dollars of gold from public lands and paid only $7000 to the federal treasury. What’s a better way to reduce the deficit? Slash EPA or end corporate subsidies?
I will be watching your voting record and hope to see that you are a true friend of clean water.
Sincerely yours,
Your name
* * *
JOIN
Join the Raymond Proffitt Foundation to protect your Pennsylvania constitutional rights to clean air and water. The annual membership dues are $25, $15 for students and senior citizens. Make out your check or money order to the Raymond Proffitt Corporation (a non-profit 501 © (3) corporation), P.O. Box 723 , Langhorne, PA 19047-0723.
Membership Application
Name..................................................
Address...............................................
......................................................
City .....................State ....... Zip..........
Phone.................................................
Fax...................................................
E-mail................................................
Interest..............................................
......................................................
Officers
Ray Proffitt, Chairman..................215-949-3936
Margaret (Bunce) Spanier, President.....610-847-8244
Lynn Landes,Vice-President............. 215-493-1070
lynnlandes@earthlink.net
Joe Turner, Sec/Tres....................215-945-1329
jturner@voicenet.com
John Wilmer,Esq., Legal Councel.........610-565-2736
jwilmer@ix.netcom.com
<<<END>>>