> From: jrclark <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: "Iowa Discussion, Alerts and Announcements"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 07:50:13 -0600
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Water Quality Bill - SF 2371
> 
> Lyle -- does this still have the wetlands "destruction" clause that Linda
> Appelgate mentioned?  Can you clarify this?

It does have mitigation language in it, as it did before, so there will be
wetlands taken out, but it also now has better mitigation language, (see
below) giving priority to the same watershed. Maybe not a victory, but an
improvement.

> Is the data from volunteers
> going to be accepted?
> 

Yes, data from volunteets will be accepted, as always in the bill, and the
victory was that volunteer data collection plans would not have to be
"pre-approved" (see below).

> Jane Clark
> 



> ----------
> From: Lyle Krewson <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Water Quality Bill - SF 2371
> Date: March 09, 2000 5:25 AM
> 
> Fellow Sierrans:
> 
> As you know, the Water Quality bill was amended and passed the Senate on
> Tuesday evening. The Senate struck everything after the enacting clause,
> and
> completely re-wrote the bill. It is much improved from the original
> version,
> although with remaining concerns.
> 
> The Senate amendments did at least these changes:
> 
> ³and² to ³or² in the definition of Credible Data -- this was a major
> victory
> for our side;
> 
> removed the pre-approval requirement for credible data from volunteer
> monitoring programs -- the second major victory for our side;
> 
> requires ³collaboration² between DNR and DOT concerning wetlands --
> innocuous as they certainly already do this;
> 
> wetlands mitigation must give priority to mitigation in the same watershed
> -- a significant victory;
> 
> other miscellaneous change.
> 
> Following is the URL for SF 2371 as amended and passed by the Senate, the
> complete new language (obviously much language is the same, with modest
> tweaks):
> 
> http://www.legis.state.ia.us/GA/78GA/Legislation/SF/02300/SF02371/Current.ht
> 
> ml
> 
> It is certainly an improved bill. We will all be working closely on it in
> the House, where I worry more about weakening than strengthening
> amendments.
> The House can be a 'tougher nut' on these issues.
> 
> Lyle
> 
> ____________________________________________
> Lyle Krewson
> 6403 Aurora Avenue #3
> Des Moines, IA 50322-2862
> 
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> 515/276-8947 - Phone/Fax
> ____________________________________________
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
> to [log in to unmask]
> 
> ----------
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
> to [log in to unmask]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]