Primarily, Jim, because the IEC has been willing to try to work with and
compromise with the Cities and Rural Water on more than we have been willing
to compromise. Our fundamental position is that the bill is not necessary,
except for the funding assistance, which they could do in the Infrastructure
Bill. 

No bill is necessary for the implementation of the rules that were adopted
by DNR and now taking effect. That has been our long reiterated position.
Rich is correct the bill is a whole lot less onerous than when we started,
because they have come a long way toward our position. But until Wally,
Steve and Albert Ettinger with the ELPC say it is OK, it is not OK.

And so far, it is not OK. Indeed, Rich encourages us to stay in the
opposition position and even to try to get a few more groups to register in
opposition...to keep the heat on. Thus our position in the Alert Message.

Hope this helps all of you.

Lyle


On 3/15/06 3:41 p, "Redmond, Jim" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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

Lyle Krewson
Sierra Club, Iowa Chapter Lobbyist
____________________________________________
6403 Aurora Avenue #3
Des Moines, IA 50322-2862

[log in to unmask]

515/276-8947 - Ofc/Res
515/238-7113 - Cel
____________________________________________ 

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