Thank you, Steve, for this analysis.  I have composed a short letter to my senator, Steve Warnstadt; but he would have more information during debate if he had access to your evaluation of the bill.  Are there sections of your analysis I could share with him.  You deal with the bill effectively, but I wonder why the public is getting the other impression of this bill from Iowa Environmental Council? 
 
Jim

________________________________

From: Iowa Discussion, Alerts and Announcements on behalf of Stephen W Veysey
Sent: Wed 3/15/2006 9:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: please clarify Water Quality Alert < Take Action Now


Hello,

Here are the facts (as I perceive them) about SF2363 and legislative actions:

1) Although Iowans are slow to adopt change, they are smart people.  When push comes to shove, cities and towns will be able to find cost effective solutions that meet the new standards.  The key is that it will take a very hard push and a shove!  Otherwise we will continue doing what we have for the past twenty-five years, denying, dodging, finger-pointing, and procrastinating.  

2) It was very encouraging that the new rules made it through the Legislative Rules Review Committee yesterday unscathed.  But their is still great danger.  Senator Black introduced a study bill at the beginning of the session that was absolutely terrible.  It's not clear who actually wrote the bill.  The study bill was full of limitations and loopholes.  Over the past several weeks, representatives of EPA, DNR, the Iowa Environmental Council, and the Sierra Club have worked hard to try to remove the most egregious language, but have been only partially successful.  The bill is now SF2363.

3) The study bill was so full of wrong statements and language contradictory to federal requirements for states administering Clean Water Act programs, it raises the question whether the drafters were simply ignorant of the details of the Clean Water Act, or simply disdainful of it. I suspect the latter.  

4) This bill is not needed.  It does not help, and can significantly harm the implementation of the new rules. 

5) The bill in it's current form has five sections.  Sections one, two, and three cannot safely be salvaged, and are totally unnecessary. These sections are simply a vehicle for building in limitations and loopholes.  In theory, the negative parts of these sections could be "neutralized" by the insertion of some key language (and the Iowa Environmental Council is pursuing that angle), but we run three serious risks:
        a) some of the needed changes will not be put into the bill, 
        b) at the last minute a few key words will be deleted or inserted by the "other side" and it will again become a dirty water bill, 
        c) there will be confusing and contradictory language creating litigation opportunities for regulated entities opposed to the new rules. They will claim that "the rules are inconsistent with the requirements of the legislation".  This will effectively freeze DNR's implementation of whatever section of the rules is being challenged.  

6) I can categorically state that sections 1, 2, and 3 serve no useful purpose, and cannot safely be neutralized.  

7) Section 4 deals with setting up a special task force to study water quality and make recommendations for "voluntarily achieving and maintaining water quality standards". When parsed carefully, this language is nonsense.  Water quality standards form the basis for the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System program (wastewater permits), which is not a voluntary program!  There is no "right to pollute", and point sources are required to have an NPDES permit and to abide by the terms of that permit.  There's nothing "voluntary" about it, and to suggest so is dangerous. Most of the groups selected in section 4 to make up the task force will simply be trying to protect their own interests, and very few of the representatives will actually have any substantive knowledge of the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act (or if they do, will be dismissive of those requirements).  While I don't expect anything particularly good to come out of that task force, I hope it will be unable to do any serious harm.

8) Section 5 certainly has merit.  The only issue the legislature should be looking at is how best to facilitate implementation and compliance with these new rules. If we want clean water, then let's just get it done!  That means a serious commitment to low interest and no interest loans, and creating sources of grant funds.  The price tag for the 400 or so communities expected to be affected by the new rules will be about 350 million.  Even spread over 20 years, that represents a fair bit of money each year for some of those communities.  However, if some fraction of the burden is shared by all Iowans it is very doable.  

9) The legislature needs to focus on the question "How do we accomplish this", not on "How do we avoid this."

Steve Veysey
Conservation Cochair
At 02:54 PM 3/14/2006, you wrote:


	Is SF2363 innocuous, harmful, or helpful.  Today's messages point in
	different directions.
	
	
	Jim
	
	Jim Redmond
	Professor of English
	Briar Cliff University
	712-279-5544
	[log in to unmask]
	
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: Iowa Discussion, Alerts and Announcements
	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask] 


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]