That Ain't Right!

WORST ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATORS IN LAST DECADE

carrie — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:39:51 +0000

“With North Carolina consistently ranking at the top of lists for best places to live and do business in the country, the legislators failed to realize the impact their decisions will have on our quality of life for the long-term.”

Dan Crawford NCLCV Director of Governmental Relations

For the first time in over 100 years, the General Assembly was led by Republicans who held a majority in both houses, with leadership who is fundamentally committed to an anti-regulatory agenda. This change was accompanied by an influx of many freshman lawmakers. These shifts, in combination with a struggling economic recovery and budget shortfalls, produced more environmentally damaging legislation than we have seen in a long time, much of which was designed to roll back progress our state has made for the environment over the past decade.

Using the economy as cover, and repeating unfounded claims that “regulations kill jobs,” this General Assembly has put environmental safeguards in their crosshairs. Decision-makers seemed to act as if North Carolina was the only state recovering from an economic downturn, and blamed North Carolina’s environmental protections. However, there is strong evidence that North Carolinians want a healthy environment, and that a healthy environment is vital for a strong and sustainable economy. In fact, North Carolina is ranked by national business publications as one of the top places to do business; these rankings include criteria such as quality of life (and access to natural areas) and fairness of the regulatory environment.

Legislator were scored on issues ranging from regulatory reform and appropriations, to terminal groins and vegetation removal. A list of the specific bills is below. Those in red were bad bills and those in green were good bills, i.e. those in red required a no vote to receive a pro-conservation score and those in green required a yes vote.

For an explanation on the bills check out NC Common Agenda or the full version of the NCLCV Scorecard_2011

SENATE AND HOUSE

SJR 17 – Senate Joint Resolution Establish Joint Regulatory Reform Committee

SB 22 – APA Rules: Limit Additional Costs

SB 110 – Permit Terminal Groins

SB 183 – Selective Vegetation Removal/State Highways

HB 200 – Appropriations Act of 2011

SB 709 – Energy Jobs Act

SB 781 – Regulatory Reform Act of 2011

SENATE

H 242 (Amendment 2) – Natural Gas Bond Fee and Landowners Protection Study

SB 708 -Building Code Rules/Effective Dates

HOUSE

HB 119 – Amend Environmental Laws 2011

HB 242 (2nd Reading) – Natural Gas Bond Fee and Landowners Protection Study

HB 787 – NC Water Efficiency Act

Promote Fracking & Offshore Drilling: S709, H242

amanda — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 23:24:50 +0000

Senate Bill 709, the so-called Energy Jobs Act, is less about jobs and more about threatening North Carolina’s groundwater supply and shorelines. The bill is a two-pronged assault on our state’s waters, both inland and off the coast. While the bill encourages oil and gas exploration and drilling in federal waters off the North Carolina coast, experts estimate that the BP oil spill in the Gulf will result in one million permanently lost jobs. That is a very large risk for uncertain payoffs. North Carolina should not allow the same actions that led to the BP spill off our pristine coastline. There are more jobs and fewer risks associated with investments in renewable energy than in fossil fuel exploration.

S709 also requires the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources to conduct a natural gas fracking study, despite a recent report from Duke University showing elevated levels of methane in groundwater at fracking sites. Residents of Pennsylvania, Texas, and across the Midwest have seen what fracking can do to water supplies. They are finding methane and toxic chemicals in their drinking water that can cause it catch on fire. North Carolina should be able to learn from these other states’ mistakes.

Disturbing the Natural Beauty of Our Beaches: S110

amanda — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 23:12:16 +0000

Jetty on Long Beach Island. Photo from http://www.livingocean.org/barrier.html

S110, as passed through the House and the Senate, would lift the ban on building expensive hardened structures, like terminal groins and jetties, on our coastline. Both Democrats and Republicans alike support the ban on these structures. However, threats from a few misinformed politicians have allowed for more of these structures, which increase erosion and beach maintenance costs.

“In 2003, the North Carolina Legislature voted unanimously to ban the construction of new, permanent erosion control structures from North Carolina’s ocean shorelines (including inlets) Session Law 2003-427. There were no dissenting votes in either chamber!” http://www.wcu.edu/4402.asp

There has been a great deal of concern on the part of both Democrats and Republicans about the cost of the structures, and who will end up footing the bill. Although terminal groins have been shown to prevent erosion in some areas, they increase erosion on neighboring beaches, which can actually increase the amount of beach renourishment needed, and the costs associated with beach maintenance. Polling has shown that most North Carolinians agree that the taxpayer should not have to bear these costs in order to protect a few privately owned beachfront properties. Read more here.

And there are better choices! An extensive economic analysis of three beach management strategies found that beach armoring (adding hardened structures such as terminal groins) was the LEAST effective management strategy, considering the costs of maintenance and construction, as well as the environmental and recreational costs the structures present. The study found that leaving a beach to its natural flow, despite some loss of property value due to erosion, is a more cost-effective method of beach management than the addition of terminal groins. The study was completed by two collaborating universities, and the study site was a barrier island off the coast of Georgia that is likely to present similar weather conditions and erosion patterns to the North Carolina coast. (Landry, Keeler, and Kriesel 2003, Marine Resource Economics)

There has been a great deal of concern on the part of both Democrats and Republicans about the cost of the structures, and who will end footing the bill. Although terminal groins have been shown to prevent erosion in some areas, they increase erosion on neighboring beaches, which can actually increase the amount of beach renourishment needed, and the costs associated with beach maintenance. Polling has shown that most North Carolinians agree that the taxpayer should not have to bear these costs in order to protect a few privately owned beachfront properties. http://www.jdnews.com/articles/nears-90447-raleigh-terminal.html

Photograph taken on Long Beach Island

http://www.livingocean.org/barrier.html

And there are better choices! An extensive economic analysis of three beach management strategies found that beach armoring (adding hardened structures such as terminal groins) was the LEAST effective management strategy considering the costs of maintenance and construction, as well as the environmental and recreational costs the structures present. The study found that leaving a beach to its natural flow, despite some loss of property value due to erosion, is a more cost-effective method of beach management than the addition of terminal groins. The study was completed by two collaborating universities, and the study site was a barrier island off the coast of Georgia that is likely to present similar weather conditions and erosion patterns to the North Carolina Coast. (Landry, Keeler, and Kriesel 2003, Marine Resource Economics)

Shift Groundwater Pollution Liability Off Polluters: S181, S48, H119

amanda — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:47:24 +0000

Rusted Pipework Emerging from Ground

Perhaps one of the most outrageous bills voted on this session is one sponsored by Senator Don East. S181 would essentially result in taxpayer bailouts for leaking underground storage tank owners. This could cost us up to $1 million annually, without requiring those responsible for the pollution to make any responsible decisions regarding the upgrading or replacement of these structures. (Senator East owns a leaking underground storage tank). Read more here.

House bill 119 has many detrimental provisions that reduce protection for our water. The many other provisions and exemptions in this piece of legislation include a 6-year delay for adopting a strategy to improve the water quality in Jordan Lake, in order to allow polluters to continue discharging into the public drinking water supply. This is unfair to the many downstream users of the waterway.

In addition, development exceptions are included regarding rules protecting fisheries in the Neuse and Pamlico estuaries. Mitigating the pollution on these new developments will not only increase public and private costs, but will damage the economic benefits that these fisheries and waterways provide. These and other damaging sections in House Bill 119 may result in less federal funding for water quality protection.

These bills and provisions don’t create jobs; they allow business and individuals to pollute our waterways. Without clean water, we threaten our health and the health of our tourism industry, which provides 378,000 jobs to North Carolinians.

Fuzzy Math Hides Public Demand for Environmental Protections

amanda — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:56:42 +0000

Last month, Majority legislative staff provided their analysis of written comments to the Joint Regulatory Reform Committee established by Senate Joint Resolution 17. See the analysis here, and then check the math and judge for yourself.

The numbers show that North Carolinians who submitted comments oppose regulatory reform by two to one – 740 oppose, and 344 support. But the Majority dismisses 573 North Carolina citizens who oppose regulatory reform, and what do you know – now their analysis shows people supporting regulatory reform by two to one. This is the math they brought to the budget debate?

If you add in people who came out and testified at six hearings held by the Joint Committee over the past few months, the picture doesn’t change. Based on a review of video recordings of the six hearings, 162 people voiced support for environmental regulations and 129 expressed an objection to regulations or complained about inconsistent application of regulations.

See how the public really feels about regulatory reform in the video below:

Then there’s the substance of the comments. Of the written comments in favor of regulatory reform, nearly half supported legalization of the sale of raw milk and legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The only environmental regulation identified as a specific topic of correspondence is “coastal wetlands/river buffers” – and it’s unclear whether the correspondence supported or opposed these regulations.

Here are the real numbers:

902 North Carolinians wrote or spoke out opposing regulatory reform, the vast majority in support of health and environmental safeguards
473 North Carolinians spoke out in favor of regulatory reform, with many of those talking about milk and marijuana

Regulatory Reform Bill of 2011: S781

amanda — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:20:20 +0000

The legislation recently passed in Senate Bill 781 certainly reforms current regulations — by undoing decades of hard work by North Carolinians to protect the wonderful natural resources that make our state beautiful and safe. This bill generates mountains of red tape and hoops to jump through, just for state agencies to do their jobs to protect the health and beauty of North Carolina’s natural areas. A flowchart that depicts new rule making procedures makes it obvious that “transparency” and “accountability” were simply empty campaign promises by this session’s senators and representatives. Now, with funding slashed and jobs cut within the Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, the state agency charged with the protection of our health and our natural resources will no longer be able to do its job effectively.

The bill prohibits the generation of rules that are any stronger than federal bare minimums. However, the federal standards are intended to be just that — minimums. The rules laid out by the EPA do not take into account the unique and varied natural resources that draw tourism and businesses to our state. This bill sets N.C. up to incur enormous costs in order to establish the legislation. Lawmakers have essentially created more government regulations and increased costs by attempting to decrease regulations and cut spending.

Another disturbing portion of this bill is the removal of a venue for citizen participation in the rule making process. Apparently, our lawmakers trust us enough to ask for our vote, but not enough to allow us to have a voice regarding laws that will affect us directly.

Lawmakers are specifically targeting the environment with this bill. The effects on our natural resources are clear and frightening, while the potential for job creation is unclear and limited at best. If we expect to have an economically and environmentally sustainable future for our children and ourselves, we must consider our public and environmental health.

Amend Environmental Laws: H119

amanda — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:17:11 +0000

The original version of this bill simply revised a few environmental rules. However, since its initial introduction to the House of Representatives, it has been loaded with provisions for special interests and industry polluters. We elected our legislators to protect the needs of the citizens of North Carolina, not special interests. The changes made in this bill are not in our best interests.

The bill now includes provisions that would reduce beverage container recycling. Not only is keeping recyclable containers out of landfills good for the environment, this industry is a large source of jobs and economic growth in North Carolina. The proposed legislation would negatively affect this beneficial industry and would even allow the burning of plastic containers that could have been recycled, releasing toxic pollutants into the air unnecessarily.

Perhaps the most outrageous part of this bill is taxpayer bailouts for leaking underground storage tank owners. This goes against the promises of fiscal responsibility that were made to the North Carolina public, by using taxes to pay for the cleanup of toxins leaking into the ground from privately owned underground tanks. This could cost us up to $1 million annually, without requiring those responsible for the pollution to make any responsible decisions regarding the upgrading or replacement of these structures. This provision does nothing to create jobs and wastes our precious income in these economically tough times. Perhaps it should not come as a surprise that Senator East, who supported this bill in committee, has a leaking underground storage tank on his property. Furthermore, one section repeals a ban on old and outdated tank technology at the request of the manufacturing industry, against the recommendations of state experts, even after an economic and technological study of the subject.

The many other provisions and exemptions in this piece of legislation include a 6 year delay for adopting a strategy to improve the water quality in Jordan Lake, in order to allow polluters to continue discharging into the public drinking water supply. This is unfair to the many downstream users of the waterway.

These exemptions and provisions protect small special interests while disadvantaging the people of North Carolina. This bill puts our clean water at risk and is bad for North Carolina’s economy. This bill does nothing to create jobs or protect the public. Instead, it writes a blank check to polluters from the taxpayers check book. That doesn’t create jobs, and that ain’t right.

Elimination of NC’s Air Toxics Program: Amendments to S308

amanda — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:14:59 +0000

On June 14, Representative Pat McElraft added an amendment to a bill that was already in motion to eliminate North Carolina’s Air Toxics Regulations. Some of the largest polluters in the state specifically requested the amendment. Furthermore, the committee that reviewed the amendment did not take public comment on the legislation, and failed to provide the Department of Natural Resources and the Environment with the changes for study or comment.

Five major polluters requested the changes:

Domtar, a paper plant in Plymouth;
Duke Energy, which currently runs seven coal-fired power plants in the western half of the state;
Evergreen Packaging Group, another paper plant based out of Canton;
Nucor Corp., a steel plant in Hertford County;
Potash Corporation, which is responsible for a phosphate facility near Aurora, North Carolina.

These five companies released 18,208,283 pounds of hazardous pollutants in 2009, over half of the total hazardous and toxic chemicals released in North Carolina that year, according to the EPA’s most recent data. These recorded releases included 516,056 pounds of known carcinogens including lead, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, styrene, polycyclic aromatic compounds, and cobalt compounds. Evidence has shown that some of these chemicals cause mutations and birth defects.

The regulations that lawmakers are stripping were enacted in 1990, with the sole purpose of protecting the public from harmful concentrations of toxic air pollutants. The rules simply state that a, “facility shall not emit any of the [listed] toxic air pollutants in such quantities that may cause or contribute beyond the premises … to any significant ambient air concentration that may adversely affect human health.” 15A NCAC 2D.1104. Yet somehow, the amendment’s sponsor contests that doing away with the ruling will not harm the state’s air quality? How can removing regulations regarding air quality not affect… air quality? Perhaps the removal of these important rules will only harm the air that we breathe. The legislators are making a clear choice to cater to the needs of polluting industries and corporations, over the health of the constituents who elected them as representatives.

After campaigning on jobs, accountability, and doing right by the people of North Carolina, it is unconscionable that legislators are catering entirely to those corporations that wish to treat North Carolinians with complete disregard. How can North Carolina get the jobs that legislators keep promising us if the air we breathe makes us too sick to work? That ain’t right.