watchdog_alerts

ALEC's "Environmental Good Samaritan Act"
The American Legislative Exchange Council's "Environmental Good Samaritan Act" is actually a pro-mining bill that provides immunity to mining companies in exchange for allowing others to do voluntary reclamation of the land and water the mine had earlier damaged. The bill releases mines from legal liability for harm they might do to people or the environment, and dictates that a mining corporation can not be the subject of a citizen suit. This ALEC bill asks every legislature to find that their "State does not possess sufficient resources to reclaim all the abandoned lands and to abate the water pollution." A "good Samaritan" acts to help others, but this bill is written for mines to help themselves.

ALEC's "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act"
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is trying to get their corporate environmental agenda—and only their agenda—into your state's classrooms. The "Environmental Literacy Improvement Act" is built around establishing an "Environmental Education Council" that would approve 'acceptable' environmental education materials. Such a council would be charged to "actively seek countervailing scientific and economic views on environmental issues." However, it would ban experts in environmental science from participation on the board while mandating that 40 percent of the board be economists. In addition, it states that text materials must "not be designed to change student behavior, attitudes or values" nor "include instruction in political action skills nor encourage political action activities." The Environmental Literacy Improvement Act attempts to control, confine, and intimidate educators into toeing the corporate line on environmental issues. This legislation has already passed in Arizona and similar legislative efforts have emerged throughout the country.

ALEC's Dirty Diesel
Corporate America's American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is currently using its vast network of state legislators to introduce and pass the "Uniform Diesel Smoke Testing Act." This legislation is a phony, industry-backed remedy to the serious problem of diesel emissions, which cause health problems ranging from asthma to cancer to birth defects. In reality, passing this bill and its findings is more harmful than doing nothing. Perhaps the most outrageous aspect of the bill is that it finds that heavy duty vehicles of today are "smokeless," and therefore less harmful to humans. 'Smokeless' diesel vehicles emit smaller, more lightweight particles which cannot naturally be flushed from your lungs and lymph nodes. These particles are actually more harmful to humans because they stay suspended in the air longer and can potentially travel long distances.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) understands that the reduction of diesel emissions is already part of the environmental agenda. Consequently, they have introduced pre-emptive model legislation to protect industry. Some of the major components of the ALEC "Uniform Diesel Smoke Testing Act" include: ensuring the potential for multiple citations is reduced; exempting farm vehicles; exempting vehicles on classification rather than on actual diesel emissions; prohibiting federal or state funds for testing unless certain bureaucratic hurdles are met using strict procedures -- including test standards designed to ensure that no engine will fail; requiring the only engines tested are those which visibly emit black smoke; and creating a panel to advise on testing made up of members from the truck and bus industries. Look for this model legislation in your state.

CAFOS Hurt Family Farms
Large corporate owned farms, or CAFOs, pose enormous health and environmental threats, generate extensive air and water pollution, and push family farmers out of business. The Farm Bureau, an organization that small family farmers rely on for support, often turns its back on the family farmer and instead, promotes factory farms. In one instance the Iowa Farm Bureau led the unsuccessful effort to defeat family farm friendly legislation, SF 2293. The bill increases DNR and local control over CAFO construction and reduces the air and water pollution caused by these massive corporate owned operations. Despite the Farm Bureau's success in substantially weakening the effect of the essential bill by delaying its effective date, the family farmers still won this battle.

Farm Bureau Trying to Kill Factory Farm Bill
The Farm Bureau is in the midst of a trial they initiated in U.S. District Court to overturn a 1998 state constitutional amendment designed to keep large out-of-state companies from farming or owning farmland in South Dakota. Farm Bureau attacked this legislation on a U.S. Constitutional basis out of fears that this anti-factory farm legislation may be duplicated in other states. The lawsuit argues that the amendment interferes in interstate commerce, discriminates against sectors of the agricultural industry and denies out-of-state individuals the chance to do business in South Dakota.

In an apparent attempt to gain public relations points, last week a witness for the Farm Bureau testified that the amendment will turn the state into an agricultural backwater. "My conclusion is that South Dakota appears to be losing competitive advantage in livestock production," said Ohio State University economist Luther Tweetan. Lawyers defending the amendment said corporate factory farms hurt family farms and rural towns and threaten the environment.

The amendment came about after two years of wrangling in the state Legislature about how to provide adequate environmental safeguards for large-scale hog farms or other animal-feeding operations. Although hogs are not mentioned in the amendment, one issue in the debate over the amendment was whether large, out-of-state companies such as Murphy Family Farms of North Carolina should be allowed to own hogs in South Dakota and contract with South Dakota farmers to raise them. The trial is expected to end soon and U.S. District Judge Charles Kornmann will decide whether the amendment approved by 59% of South Dakotans is indeed constitutional.

ALEC's Pesticide Preemption Act
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a corporate-controlled advocacy group, is circulating legislation throughout the country that would eliminate a local government's ability to control pesticide "registration, notification of use, advertising and marketing, distribution, applicator training and certification, storage, transportation, disposal, disclosure of confidential information, or product composition." This legislation leaves communities defenseless to the risks of toxic pesticide exposure from unsafe application methods, poisonous ingredients, and genetic crop modifications. Most alarmingly, the bill would even limit a community's right to know about such risks.

Efforts to Kill Bottle Bills
Although no state bottle bill has ever been repealed, the beverage industry's well-funded campaigns have been extremely successful in stopping new bottle bills or the expansion of existing ones. Hawaii recently became the first state in 20 years to pass a bottle bill – in large part because during that time industry opponents have spent tens of millions on anti-bottle bill propaganda, outspending proponents by as much as 30 to 1. Last year, the Grocery Association spent thousands to kill Iowa's bottle bill, claiming that returning a beverage container to a grocery store was a threat to public health – an argument that was quickly refuted by the state's department of public health. Another argument commonly used is that return-deposit system should be dumped in favor of a government-managed curbside recycling programs. Industry prefers curbside recycling because it places responsibility for recycling beverage containers out their hands. However, in states without bottle bills, curbside recycling, drop-off, and buyback programs together recover only 191 beverage containers per person per year, compared to 490 containers per person per year depsosit- return states. (The ideal system is a deposit system for beverage containers, complemented by curbside and drop-off systems for other products, including food containers, newspapers, cardboard, mixed paper, and yard waste.)

ALEC's "Junk Science Bills"
Unfortunately, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has been pushing "model legislation" in legislatures throughout the country to undermine the precautionary principle movement discussed in the previous section. Bills such as ALEC's "Putting Junk Science Under a Microscope" try to keep the burden of proving whether a chemical, product, or practice is safe on the public, instead of on industry. ALEC believes that endangering a company's bottom line with the "precautionary principle" outweighs the benefits of protecting public health or our environment. Current policies such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis give the benefit of the doubt to new products and technologies, which may later prove harmful. And when damage occurs, victims and their advocates have the nearly-impossible task of proving that a particular product or activity was responsible. Haven't we learned, with DDT and other harmful chemicals, that it is better to be safe than sorry?

ALEC's "Right to Farm Act"
The American Legislative Exchange Council's "Right to Farm Act" would make harmful CAFO factory farming operations immune from attempts by neighbors to protect themselves from sickening fumes and other environmental damage. The legislation uses such language as "generally accepted agriculture management practices" to describe these harmful operations. The "model bill" claims a farm cannot be found a nuisance as a result of a change in size (factorization) or use of new technology (genetic modification, excessive use of hormones for livestock, manure disposal). This legislation ties the hands of state agricultural agencies when they try to protect neighboring homes, towns, and farms. The most insidious aspect of the bill is that any person who loses a nuisance complaint (which they would as a result of this legislation) must pay for court costs and lawyer fees. If a person complains unsuccessfully more than three times in three years, he must also pay the state for the costs of any new investigations. This bill gives corporate farm operations a free pass to abuse and harm their neighbors, and allows them to impoverish these people when they complain.

Coors / ALEC Audit Privilege Bill
The so-called "Environmental Audit Privilege" bill, which was originally written by the Coors corporation and circulated by the American Legislative Exchange Council, is turning up in state legislatures across the country. In the early 1990s, the company battled the Colorado Public Health and Environment Department over smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by its brewery in Golden, Colorado. Although Coors and the state eventually settled on $237,000 in penalties, with Coors agreeing to reduce the brewery's VOC emissions by 200,000 tons a year, the company apparently decided to strike back, through ALEC's "model" bill. According to The Good Neighbor Project for Sustainable Industries, "ALEC's model audit secrecy and immunity legislation is based, in large part, on the Colorado audit/immunity law. This model legislation was reviewed and re-drafted on February 2, 1995 by ALEC's National Task Force on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources, including Allan E. Auger of Coors and Cindy Goldman, a wife of a Coors executive. Auger was also Chairman of ALEC's Private Enterprise Board in 1995." (http://gnp.enviroweb.org/corporat.htm#Coors) This law passed both houses and was signed into Colorado law in 1998.

Much of ALEC's legislation originates from corporations' government affairs offices. In addition, before ALEC can circulate model legislation it first must be approved by a "task force" that must have corporate representatives. Although state legislators are also on these task forces, nothing can move out of the task force without agreement from its corporate representatives. In other words, corporations such as Coors have complete veto power over anything ALEC does.

This bill has been aptly named the "polluter protection act" because state penalties are waived and records are sealed when polluters conduct "self-audits" and report their own violations of environmental laws. This bill puts the public's right-to-know about environmental, workplace, and industrial hazards far behind protecting the secrecy of polluters and other corporate wrongdoers. As a high-ranking EPA enforcement official put it: "This is coming from big companies that have been targets of enforcement action." ALEC's "Environmental Audit Privilege" Bill grants corporations the privilege of confidentiality and gives special protection from government proceedings. In short, ALEC's bill would allow Enron to decide whether or not it needs an environmental audit, and then allow them to keep that information secret so it won't be used against Enron later in a criminal proceeding.

Since 1993, 26 states passed Environmental Audit Privilege laws similar to ALEC's model legislation. These statutes grant privilege and/or immunity to corporations who conduct self-audits, preventing such documents from being used against them in court or to assess fines. Contrary to their proponents' claims, these bills do not increase the frequency of audits or the reporting of violations, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Instead, the bills make it harder to punish corporations who violate the law and inhibit the public's ability to find out about such violations. In fact, the EPA has threatened to revoke states' federally delegated powers if they do not amend their audit privilege laws. 22 states have done just that, but Illinois, Kansas, and Idaho are holding out and Mississippi is likely to lose control of an important lead paint removal program because of its unwillingness to change its law.

We need legislation that promotes accountability and openness, not corporate confidentiality. ALEC's environmental audit bill grants special privilege to the polluters who need it least.

ALEC's "Common Sense" Scientific & Technical Evidence Act
The "precautionary principle" is a common sense guideline based on the idea of "better safe than sorry". It states that when we are making laws about an activity that threatens harm to children's health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken, even if a direct scientific cause and effect relationship is not yet fully established. For example, schools should disclose use of dangerous chemicals and pesticides before we have direct proof that our children are already sick.

ALEC's "model" Scientific and Technical Evidence Act argues that statistical science should not be allowed as evidence in a courtroom. This "sorry before safe" principle means we have to wait for damage to occur before we have "direct scientific evidence" needed to stop the harm. If we found a statistical correlation that dangerous chemicals in certain schools were hurting children in those schools, ALEC's model legislation would not allow that information to become evidence in a lawsuit. ALEC's bill mandates direct evidence of a specific pollutant hurting a specific child before we'd be forced to stop using dangerous chemicals. It's not using common sense to wait for a child to get sick before we act.

ALEC's bill makes it more difficult for environmental activists to bring lawsuits against corporate polluters. By not allowing relevant information as evidence in court, this bill takes power away from states, the judge and the jury. ALEC would have you believe their legal definitions are commonplace, but there are sharp divisions among the courts regarding the proper standard for "expert testimony". The Federal Rules of Evidence does not give any indication that "general acceptance" is a necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence. When dealing with our children's health, it's common sense that the court should explore all available methods, including statistical correlation, to allow the presentation of novel expert proof. All relevant information should be considered by the judge and jury.

ALEC argues that statistical science should not be allowed as evidence in a courtroom. This "sorry before safe" principle means we have to wait for damage to occur before we have "direct scientific evidence" needed to stop the harm. If we found a statistical correlation that dangerous chemicals in certain schools were hurting children in those schools, ALEC's model legislation would not allow that information to become evidence. This bill mandates evidence of a specific pollutant hurting a specific child before we'd be forced to stop using dangerous chemicals. ALEC's bill makes it more difficult for environmental activists to bring lawsuits against corporate polluters, and by not allowing relevant information as evidence in court, this bill takes power away from states, the judge and the jury. It is not based on common sense.

Beware of NEPI's new "environmental" group
A new group called the "Environmental Foundation of the States" was recently launched and is expected to aggressively promote the advocacy agenda of its parent organization, the conservative National Environmental Policy Institute (NEPI). NEPI is financed primarily by corporate special interests that, among other objectives, want to weaken the Nation's environmental protection laws and regulations. NEPI makes a pretext of being objective and bipartisan, but its policy and political preferences are clear from its solidly business-oriented agenda and those in leadership positions.

ALEC's Energy Bill Keeps Public in the Dark
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a right-wing advocacy group funded by the big oil and utility companies, is trying to sneak one past us again. ALEC is playing off fear of a power shortage by introducing legislation which will keep the public completely in the dark about power plant siting decisions.

The ALEC "Power Plant Siting Act" includes these troubling provisions:

All authority to site power plants is consolidated in one small elite government body that renders ultimate decisions without public representation or input.
That body is comprised of five people: three are appointed by the Governor and one is appointed by each branch of the legislature. There is no public advocate or elected official on this Siting Board.
All decisions can be made with only three people present, and by a three vote majority. This Siting Board is purposely structured for Gubernatorial appointees to have ultimate control, and the legislative representatives don't even need to show up. It's like Boss Hogg, Enis and Roscoe making the decisions for Hazzard County. Under this structure, legislative appointees and the public have little or no power.
This Board can override all local and siting and zoning decisions. They simply have to decide the law passed by local officials is "too restrictive".
If a member of the public wants information from the Siting Board, that person will need to pay money to get it.
If the Siting Board doesn't want to give out public information, it can refuse by deeming the information a "trade secret" or "privileged, confidential or proprietary information". In short, the workings of the Siting Board are not subject to public scrutiny.
The Board has the right to refuse testimony at a public hearing by calling it "repetitive or cumulative".

Under the ALEC time line, a power plant could be sited in a month and a week. In other words, a power company could apply for a site the week before Memorial Day and break ground the week after the Fourth of July. This is not a responsible process.

The problems in California are not shared by all the other states. For more information about energy legislation in your state, see SERC's Clean Energy Page.

ALEC's Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis Bills
Recently, Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes vetoed HB 587, which would have created an advisory committee to develop guidelines the state Board of Natural Resources could use to determine whether the benefits of proposed environmental regulations would be worth the costs. The bill is a version of the "Economic Impact Statement Act" being circulated in state legislatures throughout the country by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). In his veto message, Barnes argued that the costs of determining those costs would be prohibitive. He cited state Environmental Protection Division estimates that subjecting last year's crop of 15 new environmental regulations to the analysis required by the bill would have run up a tab of $1.5 million. The governor also said he was concerned that the measure could have made it more difficult for the state to enforce federal clean air and water laws.

Censorship and Science
A disturbing trend is emerging in scientific research – the censorship of unpopular research and results. This can happen at several levels, from the approval and funding of research projects, to the publication of results in the scientific literature. The impact on our health and the health of our environment could be dramatic, since often the research that is suppressed examines causes of human health and environmental problems—information critical for good policy-making. As corporations become more involved in funding scientific research, they also gain control over the research agenda. For example, the USDA maintains a list of research topics that may not be pursued with out permission from its national headquarters. The list contains just about anything having to do with the pollution of air, water or soil by agriculture – in other words, anything that might upset the corporate agriculture interests that sit on USDA advisory councils. Even if such research is conducted, it may not be published or made available to the public. A federal swine researcher in Iowa was told not to publish his results that found evidence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in air emitted from hog confinements. The same researcher was denied opportunities to present his work publicly, despite repeated requests from outside groups. Perhaps most disturbing is the possibility that, because of events like these, scientists may self-censor, deciding to pursue non-controversial topics to keep their supervisors and funders happy. Good information is critical to addressing to protecting our health, and right now independent research is being compromised.

NAFTA Treaty may Supercede State Water Regulations
Trade agreements like NAFTA could prevent states from regulating water distribution services owned by foreign corporations, according to some water policy analysts. The issue was raised by West Virginia's Attorney General, who has tried to stop the purchase of the Kentucky-American Water Company by Thames Water, a British subsidiary of the German firm RWE Aktiengesellschaft. The concern is that the company could sue under NAFTA if state regulation capped water rates or limited profits in other ways. Thames argued that the international agreements are not relevant, but declined to waive its rights under them.

Smart Growth Programs Being Cut Nationwide
A report released last week by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse and Smart Growth America says that more than a dozen states have made or are considering massive cuts to smart growth programs to address budget shortfalls. The report warned that cutting these vital programs eventually will threaten local economies, the environment and public health, and called on state legislators to defend them. Some state officials, who apparently realize the long-term benefits of smart growth initiatives, are expanding these programs or starting new ones. Report authors say these officials are responding to their constituents: "While our national priorities clearly have changed since the tragic events of September 11, Americans have a different set of local priorities, and sprawl is one of their top concerns," said Allison Smiley, director of the Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse. "Even in last November's election, voters passed 73 percent of the open space protection ballot measures in 14 states."

ALEC's TMDL Implementation Act
America is in the midst of the most severe drought in recent memory. Soils are parched, wells are dry, and reservoirs are empty. Our water is running out, and this Summer we can expect an increased need.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements allow us to keep our water clean and use this evaporating resource to the fullest extent possible. The federal Clean Water Act vests primary responsibility for TMDL to the states.

ALEC's TMDL Implementation Act makes a bad drought situation even worse. This legislation clings to phrases like "resource constraints" and "sound scientific data" to treat water use "in the most cost-effective" fashion possible. The ALEC TMDL Act focuses on business costs – not costs to our health – and waits for water to be contaminated before we clean it up.

By requiring overly-demanding scientific proof of poisoning, the ALEC TMDL Implementation Act does little to protect our drinking water until after the problem has already occurred. ALEC sets up several hurdles to using science in a precautionary way, making it difficult to pro-actively take steps to address water problems before they occur.

By requiring such a high burden of scientific proof, ALEC encourages states to avoid regulatory compliance or enforcement until it's too late. When dealing with our drinking water during a drought, it is better to be safe than sorry.

Arizona's Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan at Risk
Some Arizona state lawmakers are renewing their efforts to rein in Pima County's award winning Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. (Arizona Daily Star 1/8) Conservationists and "lobbyists from cities and counties rallied to beat back an attempt" to undermine the "cutting-edge" conservation plan. It seeks to "establish biological corridors and reserve areas" tochannel development in the sprawling Tucson area away from the most ecologically sensitive areas. New draft legislation would prohibit the county from altering current agriculture uses for land such as grazing.

PA Bill Equates Peaceful Environmental Protests With Terrorism
Pennsylvania State Senator Joe Scarnati is trying to equate the very serious issue of terrorism with environmentalists that peacefully protest. The bill, intended to deal with "environmental terrorism" would make protests on environmental issues a criminal activity if they, in the Senator's words, "caused harm to businesses... in an effort to express their misinformed ideas." Certainly, most would agree that destroying other's property, should be punished -- and is already addressed in law. However, the troubling aspect of this bill is that it targets people whose primary purpose is "expressing a perspective on a environmental cause or natural resource issue" and who are "destructive to property or business practices." In essence, the "business practices" wording of the bill is so loosely written that it would make it illegal to protest a business if it is about an environmental issue -- even if it is done peacefully and doesn't violate trespassing statutes or any other laws. For example, this could even be interpreted to mean that if a protest is held on a public sidewalk and it causes any potential customers to voluntarily decide not to enter the business, the protest has been "destructive to business practices" and the protesters would be held criminally liable. This is yet another troubling example of anti-environmentalists attempting to take advantage of the September 11 tragedies to further their own agenda.

Local editorial boards have railed against this bill:

1/9/02 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial exerpts:
"In America's war against terror, some opportunists inevitably will try to take advantage of public anxiety and target behavior that they simply don't like -- even it is covered by existing laws. That is the problem with a bill supported by a state senator who wishes to curb so-called eco-terrorism."

"State Senator Joseph Scarnetti, a Republican representing counties around the Allegheny National Forest, is a friend of the timber industry and no friend of environmental activists who challenge it. Unfortunately, he has lost sight of the larger issue of place of dissent in a democratic society. In short, he cannot see the forest for the trees."

"If environmental protesters trespass or commit vandalism or disorderly conduct, they ought to be persecuted. If lumber companies suffer damages, they should sue. But a new category of terrorism doesn't have to be invented for acts that don't rival the real and dreadful thing."

1/9/02 Warren Times-Observer
"Suppose a church group concerned about declining family values in entertainment decides to picket the showing of a movie at the local cinema because of its supposed objectionable nature. Because of the picketing and the group's appeal conscience, attendance at the showings drops precipitously even though no one stopped them from entering the theater. Should the protesters be held criminally liable for the loss of business caused by their 'effort to express misinformed ideas?' Should they be forced by the state to make restitution for the lost business at the movie theater? By Scarnati's standards they would."

Lack of Funds Chokes Air Pollution Regulation
Wisconsin has the worst record in the nation when it comes to processing air pollution permits. At least 280 companies are operating without permits, and some have been for as long as eight years. No permit means there is no limit on pollution levels, which means more polluted air. The cause: lack of funding at the Department of Natural Resources. The outgoing Governor eliminated fee increases, and the legislature has not come up with the funds necessary to deal with the backlog. Companies are not anxious to fix the situation, according to the Sierra Club, because they might have to spend more on pollution control. Environmental groups have turned to the EPA, asking it to force the DNR to speed up the processing of permits, but it's unclear where the money to do that will come from. As more and more states face budget problems, it's likely that permitting and enforcement of pollution laws around the country will suffer.

Defense Dept. Gains Exemption from Migratory Bird Protections
Congress recently exempted the Department of Defense from the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which protects 850 species from harm. The measure, which was inserted in a defense authorization bill while it was in conference committee, gives an interim exemption from the act and requires the Interior Secretary to write regulations that would continue the exemption. The exemption will "effectively give the Defense Department license to bomb and destroy at will the natural habitats of migratory birds, endangering more than 1 million birds and curtailing the enjoyment of more than 50 million bird enthusiasts in this country," said Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.). A full exemption from the treaty could undermine the ability of states to administer pollution control laws, and negatively impact local communities that are located near DOD operations. Environmentalists argue that no federal agency should be granted special reprieve from the laws which individuals and businesses are required to adhere. The Pentagon also requested exemption from the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Although Congress did not grant all the requested exemptions, the fact that they granted any is disturbing.

ALEC Launches Bid Against CO2 Emissions Laws
Last week, Inside EPA reported on a new study and model bill being pushed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to their state legislators in an attempt to weaken or stop carbon dioxide (CO2) emission regulations. The study, which links increased mortality rates with increased environmental regulation, was financed in part by the Edison Electric Institute, the National Mining Association and Center for Energy & Economic Development. The model legislation, called the "Conditioning Regulation of Non-Pollutant Emissions on Science," would require a state environment commissioner, prior to regulating CO2, to determine whether the regulation would have a "substantial and significant adverse effect" on energy or fuel availability or price, and to balance that impact against the proposal's benefits, among other provisions. ALEC is attempting to derail CO2 emissions bills, as many states, including California, are seeking to put in place strict new emissions control regimes. Through the study and bill, ALEC is trying to suggest that tough clean air rules could harm public health by increasing energy costs (and thereby deepening poverty) and unemployment. The study, "Mortality Reductions From Use Of Low-Cost Coal-Fueled Power: An Analytical Framework," ignores the health impacts of global warming, such as more human fatalities resulting from increasing summer temperatures and disasters such as tornados and hurricanes, and the spread of tropical diseases such as west nile virus and malaria. Global climate change's economic costs include devastating droughts and associated crop losses and forest fires, the destruction of infrastructure, and the gradual loss of fish and game species. One environmentalist who works on state-level issues is calling the study a coal-industry effort to broadly avoid new controls. "If you are saying that burning more coal and dirtier air is the solution to healthier living, you have to question the motives behind the report," the source says. "It's obviously out to give ALEC legislators something to use when four-pollutant legislation or any legislation limiting coal use is debated by state legislators."

Bill Calls for EPA Report on State Emissions Regs.
The Senate omnibus spending measure contains language requiring the U.S. EPA to submit a report by early next year on the "practices and procedures" states use to develop separate emissions standards for road and non-road vehicles. Under federal law, California is the only state authorized to set its own vehicle emissions standards, and even then federal law reserves the right to regulate fuel economy for the federal government. Environmentalists fear the Bush administration and congressional Republicans will use the study to lay the groundwork for challenging California's attempts to force automakers to produce a certain percentage of "zero emissions" vehicles, as well as the state's attempt to force automakers to produce vehicles that emit less "greenhouse gas" (GHG) pollution. Green groups also are alarmed that the study could be used as a weapon to block states from setting tougher Clean Air Act New Source Review requirements and toxic air emissions.

Missouri Surrenders Control Over Its Water Quality
In a surprising and puzzling move, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources has announced that it will eliminate its water quality certification program and turn it over to the EPA. This move comes at a time when many states are questioning the federal government's ability to adequately protect their natural resources. The state has used the program in the past to block or modify proposals that would have polluted state waters, and it's questionable whether or not federal officials would have the same perspective. Environmentalists, legislators, and bureaucrats were all confused by the move, and the EPA was unsure if it could take on the program, since no state has given up a permitting program before. The DNR claims that the move was motivated by budget cuts. Carla Klein, of the Sierra Club, said the state's action sets a bad precedent. "Missouri, in general, wants to keep all the states' rights it can," she said. "Turning this one over is troublesome."

Indiana Attorney General Supports Relaxed Emissions Regs.
Indiana environmentalists are fuming over Attorney General Steve Carter's support for a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plan that relaxes rules on emissions from coal-fired power plants and other industries. Carter and attorneys general from seven other states last week filed legal briefs in support of Bush administration changes to how pollution emissions are regulated. The briefs sought to intervene in a lawsuit filed by attorneys general from Eastern states who claim the relaxed EPA rules violate the Clean Air Act and undermine state efforts to adopt stricter pollution protections. Officials in Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states blame their air quality problems on pollution drifting in from Midwest industries, including those in Indiana. Carter said the lawsuit could reduce states' flexibility to enforce the Clean Air Act. "Indiana citizens are impacted greatly by these rules," Carter said in a written statement. "It is important that the courts be informed of the views of those in the Midwest and other parts of the country, and not just those of the Northeastern attorneys general." Indiana Department of Environmental Management officials had recommended that Carter not get involved in the suit, which challenges rules that allow facilities to avoid enforcement if they increase emissions but stay within a new, plant-wide emissions cap.

Bush Administration Opens Wilderness to Road Claims
The Bush administration quietly implemented a long-dead Civil War-era law (Revised Statute 2477 or RS 2477). This legislation has the potential to open millions of acres of land in national parks and federally designated wilderness areas to motorized transportation. The new rule removes public comment and judicial review from the process and gives the Bureau of Land Management sole authority to validate right-of-way claims. By providing access to isolated holdings, it could also open remote country to drilling for oil and gas and other commercial development.

In many cases, what authorities are claiming as "roads" amount to little more than wagon tracks, livestock paths and even dogsled routes in Alaska. But with muscular, four-wheel-drive vehicles, even the most primitive routes can allow access to untrammeled places. Park and wilderness advocates fear it will disrupt wildlife habitat, turning 19th century wagon ruts into paved roadways, allowing cars and their pollution into unspoiled places. In fact, the National Park Service evaluated potential RS 2477 claims ten years ago and found that if the roads were allowed, the impact would be devastating. The report noted that the claims could cross many miles of undisturbed fish and wildlife habitat, historical and archeological resources, and sensitive wetlands.

Nationally, some of the most celebrated public landscape could be affected. Alaska has asserted claims over 22,000 waterways and 2,700 miles of roads in 13 national parks and preserves, including Denali National Park and the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. In California, San Bernardino County has indicated its intent to claim nearly 5,000 miles of rights of way — more than twice the total mileage of maintained roads in the entire county. In Utah, many of the rights of way crisscross southern Utah's spectacular red rock country — where local officials contend that the cluster of half a dozen national parks and proposed wilderness areas stand in the way of access to cattle grazing, minerals, and oil and gas deposits.

Sprawling Dreams
Anti-smart growth and public transit activists will gather for three days in Washington, DC this week to figure out how to promote their vision of an America that is based entirely on cars, cheap fuel, and suburban sprawl. The organizers of "Preserving the American Dream" conference have billed the gathering as the starting point of a new battle to advance what they view as their right to build anything anywhere. The conference was organized by a small number of loosely-connected, anti-public transportation zealots affiliated with extremist libertarian "think tanks," that travel from city to city in an attempt to confuse citizens and defeat public transportation ballot issues. One of key speakers, Wendell Cox, is a St. Louis-based consultant whose websites publicpurpose.com and demographia.com serve as the central source for misinformation utilized by the movement. Cox's bogus attacks have been paid for in the past by various lobbying groups whose members are drawn from the trucking, auto, cement and asphalt, heavy construction, and petroleum industries. For solid information and evidence that explains the benefits of smart growth and public transit, including rebuttals to specific claims made by Cox and others, visit http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/critics.html or http://www.sprawlwatch.org/.

EPA Plans to Relax Toxic Emission Standards
The Bush administration is proposing to relax measures that curb toxic emissions from a variety of industries, including pulp mills, auto factories, petrochemical plants and steel mills. Under a new set of rules drafted by the U.S.EPA, the businesses could opt out of the current requirement to reduce toxic fumes from their plants to the maximum extent possible. In some instances, those controls can eliminate virtually all emissions harmful to people's health, but businesses contend they cost too much and provide little health benefit. The emissions at issue are hazardous because they can lead to cancer or damage the brain or a developing fetus. Under the new rules, the EPA would allow businesses to study and report on their own emissions and apply less rigorous controls. But opponents say that approach would allow toxic releases to continue and would be at odds with the Clean Air Act. Outside California, which has its own rules, many states rely on the EPA to set limits for hazardous air pollutants. "What is really going on here is rollbacks in environmental law, either in the form of no enforcement or misinterpretation of the statute," said Rena Steinzor, director of the University of Maryland's Environmental Law Clinic. "It is going on so far below the water line of the public's attention that they are happening in a fast, furious manner. It's designed to make sure we never regulate anything. It's an end run."

Alaska Habitat Permitting Proposal Favors Developers
More than 60 people testified in the Senate Resources Committee last week about an order by Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski to move habitat permitting authority from the Dept. of Fish and Game to the Dept. of Natural Resources. The transfer plan will take effect April 15 unless the Legislature acts to block the governor's order. The hearing was a review of the plans, not a consideration of legislation. Sport fishing groups and conservationists objected to the move on the grounds that it would weaken protections to habitat, but industry supporters and department commissioners said it would streamline permitting without degrading environmental oversight. In his State of the State address in January, Murkowski said the Habitat Division has delayed legitimate development projects. Shortly after the governor's speech five former Fish and Game commissioners came out in opposition to the move, noting state founders created two agencies to establish checks and balances between developers and regulators. State Sen. Kim Elton said using an untested method of habitat permitting and laying off biologists or moving them to a department whose main function is to develop resources "creates a playground for lawyers."

Challenges to Smart Growth Message
After voters proved their receptiveness to smart growth by passing 78 percent of 553 land-protection and growth-management initiatives in Nov. 2000, an editor of the Hartford Courant notes, "a counterattack" began to form, "aimed at discrediting the entire notion of using government to promote beneficial development patterns." He quoted several conference speakers at a recent three-day Washington, DC conference held by the Oregon-based Thoreau Institute entitled "Preserving the American Dream (of Mobility and Homeownership)", such as the Taxpayers League of Minnesota leader David Strom who said his group campaigned against a mass transit proposal in the Twin Cities area charging proponents with "social engineering," which "sounded bad, ... like they were a bunch of commies." South Carolina Landowners' Association executive director Michelle Thaxton cautioned conferees against touching smart growth complexity because people can't absorb "more than three to five points" while journalists like "sound bites, phrases" and write about it "on an eighth-grade level." Others were equally helpful, considering even using "the race card" against smart growth, but failing to acknowledge the advantages of compact metro areas to minorities, with 24 percent of black households dependent on public transportation. The conferees expect money for "an anti-smart-growth campaign" from the Scaife Foundations and others conservative groups, from Wal-Mart, Home Depot, other big-box retailers, road contractors, home builders and developers, the editor reports, concluding that what they need most is "intellectual honesty and decency."

ALEC Trip Funding May Conflict with Law
Did corporate interests in your state fund ALEC scholarships to send some 500 state legislators to enjoy a free stay at a major resort? Businesses that routinely lobby the Nebraska Legislature bankrolled a weekend trip for 13 lawmakers to attend an ALEC conference in Las Vegas. The funding method might conflict with a state law that bars gifts of more than $50 per month from lobbyists, although the trip's organizer says nothing improper has occurred. Nebraska State Sen. Pat Engel organized the trip in his role as state chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a private group in which lawmakers and conservative business interests draft model legislation on a variety of issues. ALEC is paying for lawmakers' lodging and airfare, expected to total $12,000 or more, with "scholarship" money raised from businesses that lobby in Nebraska. Engel said that the practice complies with the law because the donations from lobbyists are funneled through ALEC and not earmarked for individual lawmakers. He said the payment method has been used for such ALEC meetings for a number of years. A 1995 advisory opinion issued by the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission questioned the ALEC fund-raising practice, saying the "scholarship" money cannot exceed $50. Engel said all 13 lawmakers had their travel expenses - $209 per night lodging and up to $500 for transportation - covered by the ALEC scholarships. The cost of the trip would be $918 if the lawmaker stayed two nights and $1,127 for a three night stay. Engel said lawmakers paid no registration fee for the meeting. While the scholarships come from an ALEC account held on Nebraska's behalf, Engel acknowledged that the money is provided by NE lobby groups. Jack Gould, spokesman for Common Cause Nebraska, questioned Friday whether the fund-raising method complied with state law governing gifts to lawmakers. Many lawmakers waited to leave Lincoln until after the Legislature adjourned Friday. In Colorado, the Legislature there reportedly had to shut down early because so many lawmakers had left for the ALEC conference. ALEC has drawn some criticism for its close relationship to corporate America. The group puts state legislators at the same table with business interests to vote on model legislation on a variety of topics, from privatizing Medicaid to private school vouchers. Where were your state legislators over the weekend? If they were in Las Vegas, how much 'scholarship' money did ALEC funnel to them from corporate lobbyists in your state? For more information on how ALEC works to conceal and advance the legislative agenda of hundreds of big corporations and trade associations in state capitals from coast to coast, visit http://www.alecwatch.org.

Manufacturers Attempt Efficiency Standard Preemption
The major manufacturers' trade association is pushing federal legislation to preempt state efficiency standards. This action would void state authority to establish efficiency standards for key products. The immediate effect of the proposal would be to void nearly all of the new standards established by California last fall, to eliminate existing electric distribution transformer standards in Minnesota, New York and Massachusetts and to render moot state standards legislation pending in several states such as Maryland. Energy efficiency supporters and manufacturers worked out a consensus package of efficiency standards and timetables for effective dates and preemption over two years of negotiations. Those standards were included in the Conference Committee energy bill last year and in bill approved this year by the House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee. The manufacturer proposal shatters this consensus by moving up preemption to the date a federal standard is enacted rather than the date it becomes effective, by giving DOE unilateral authority to preempt certain state standards and by legislating weak, non-consensus standards for several additional products. In the four prior laws establishing federal efficiency standards, Congress has never preempted already existing state energy efficiency standards. For more information, contact the Appliance Standards Awareness Project at 617-363-9470, or visit SERC's efficiency standards website at http://www.serconline.org/efficiencystandards/index.html.

Montana House Bill Would Limit Conservation Easements
Conservation easements are a powerful tool for protecting open space and natural resources. Land owners agree to limit development on their property through the creation of an easement, which is held by a land trust or a government agency. The creation of an easement often has positive tax implications for the land owner, in addition to conservation benefits. This is an increasingly popular method of protecting our natural resources, and it's come under attack in Montana. Montana House Bill 725, introduced by Rep. Maedje, would require all easements to be approved by the local government, enforce a two year waiting period on the transfer of any easements, limit the ability of local governments to accept federal funding for easements, and require organizations that facilitate the creation of easements to obtain a license from the state. The bill changes the intention of Montana's existing easement law to focus on resource use and human communities, instead of biotic communities and the preservation of resources. This is best evidenced by a provision which states "a conservation easement may not prohibit natural resource use." Shouldn't that be the landowner's choice? Part of the beauty of easements is that they are private decisions by property owners. This attempt to limit easements is an infringement on property owner's rights, and an attack on a valuable conservation tool.

New Threats to Michigan Wetlands
The Michigan legislature has introduced legislation that, if passed, would be extremely devastating to Michigan's 3,288 miles of shoreline and coastal wetlands. HB4257 is cleverly disguised as a tool for beach maintenance activities. The bill allows riparian property land owners to use mechanized means -- plowing, bulldozing, etc. -- to "maintain" their property. Maintenance includes the removal of topsoil, removal of vegetation, and the relocation of naturally deposited sand. The property that would be affected is land between the ordinary high water mark and the water edge of Lake Michigan's, Huron's, Erie's, and Superior's public water trust bottomlands. Furthermore, these activities would not be subject to any oversight or environmental review even though they would be occurring on public lands, including wetlands. HB4257 has already passed the House and is awaiting introduction in Senate, whereas the Senate's version, SB244, has not made it out of committee. These bills not only exclude the public's input, but will destroy public land in the interest of a property owner's aesthetic tastes.

ALEC's Electronic Government Services Act
A new ALEC bill, the Electronic Government Services Act, has shown up in eleven states, and is close to passage in Ohio, where it has been included in a budget bill. This bill would, among other things, prohibit states from duplicating electronic information services offered by two or more private companies. This would include information that is currently available for free on government websites, even if the private companies charge for the same information. The types of information affected could range from details about a state park or festival (do you really want to have to pay a travel agent to book you a camping site?) to environmental regulations, emissions data, toxic release inventories, court opinions, and many other important public records. Simply put, public records should be publicly available to everyone. States should not be restricted from posting their own records and information on their own websites. Consistent with their pro-corporate ideology, ALEC is promoting this bill, which would effectively increase the "privatization" of public information and restrict access. Watch out for this Trojan Horse bill in your state.

Don't Balance the Budget at the Expense of Environmental Programs
State lawmakers across the country are shortsightedly slashing funding for environmental programs in an attempt to balance state budgets. New Hampshire legislators have proposed gutting the funding of the immensely popular land and community heritage investment program, and redirecting funds earmarked for soil and groundwater decontamination. Florida senators tried unsuccessfully to take half the budget of the state's manatee protection program, even after the recent USGS determination that manatees face extinction. The Florida House may remove any guarantees to fund six environmental protection programs. The North Carolina Assembly wants to reduce funding for land conservation by 75 percent. Minnesota will almost certainly end a 40 year old program that directs cigarette tax funds to protecting the state's natural resources. South Carolina lawmakers are eyeing 15 environmental funds as a source of $16 million, a move that would remove almost all the funding for a toxic waste clean-up fund. The budget problems faced by states are serious, and cuts may need to be made across the board, but environmental programs should not be disproportionately targeted. These programs, which protect wildlife and habitat, promote recycling, conserve open space, maintain parks, and clean up pollution, are an investment in our future. Rather than targeting them for budget cuts, we should look for ways to stop subsidizing environmentally harmful projects and practices.

'Freedom to Fish' Act Swims Through New Jersey Legislature
Marine ecosystems, just as important – and just as threatened – as terrestrial ecosystems, are a public resource that should be managed for the public good. One crucial management tool is the creation of fully protected marine areas, where no extractive activities are allowed, which benefit fish populations, other marine life and the entire coastline by providing a refuge for marine animals. A bill making its way through the New Jersey legislature would make it almost impossible to set up fully protected marine areas, denying the state an important conservation tool. SB 2323 and AB 3326, which have both passed out of committee, would prohibit the creation of areas closed to recreational fishing unless the state can prove that recreational fishing is the cause of a specific problem. The legislation puts the burden of proof on those who want to protect marine resources rather than on those who are consuming – and potentially harming – them before taking action. Clearly, this is a dangerous precedent. Similar legislative language, promoted by the Recreational Fishing Alliance, has been introduced in eight other states – CA, DE, MD, NY, RI, SC, TX, and WA. These bills would make it impossible for states to protect and restore ocean ecosystems. This bill unnecessarily restricts a state's ability to manage its coastal habitats. If your state has a coastline, watch out for this type of bill.

For more information about SERC, or to use our services, contact our national headquarters at:

State Environmental Resource Center
106 East Doty Street, Suite 200 § Madison, Wisconsin 53703
Phone: 608-252-9800 § Fax: 608-252-9828
Email: info@serconline.org