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
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lyle Krewson
>Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 2:49 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Water Quality Alert < Take Action Now
>
>Iowa Sierrans and Friends:
>
>From: Lyle Krewson, Sierra Club Chapter Lobbyist
>
>Environmentalists win Round One!
>Water Quality Rules approved by Administrative Rules Review Committee.
>
>Next Action Needed!
>
>Email or call your Senator now. Ask them to vote "No" on SF 2363 the
>Water
>Quality Standards bill. Tell them you do not need this legislation,
>you want them to allow the Water Quality Standards rules promulgated by
>the
>Iowa Department of Natural Resources to take effect as approved by the
>Administrative Rules Review Committee earlier this week. Those rules
>bring
>Iowa into compliance with the federal Clean Water Act for the first time
>in
>30 years...one of the final 5-6 states to come into compliance.
>
>This water quality bill is the big issue of the 2006 Session for Sierra
>Club! It's the issue you have been reading about in the Iowa
>Sierran newsletter, which is now also posted on our website at
>http://iowa.sierraclub.org and in the Des Moines Register and other Iowa
>papers, in the recent months.
>
>Emphasize that you want Iowa to be in compliance with good water quality
>standards as enforced by the federal EPA. The rules do that.
>
>Remind them that you and your children want clean streams and lakes for
>recreation, quality of life, and for drinking water sources. The rules
>set
>that into motion.
>
>So, email or call them now, tell them we do not need this legislation,
>and
>that we need to allow the rules promulgated by the Iowa Department of
>Natural Resources to take effect as passed. No legislative action should
>impede the implementation. That is the central message.
>
>Tell them you support a funding mechanism, state grants and loans, to
>assist
>communities in attaining compliance with their waste water treatment
>systems. You want progress soon!
>
>And, !Thank You!" For taking action.
>
>Email Senators via this link to their email addresses:
>http://www.legis.state.ia.us/aspx/Legislators/SenateEmail.aspx
>
>OR, call Senators via the Senate Switchboard - 515/281-3371, or call
>them at
>their home, if it is the weekend, Friday - Sunday.
>
>
>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
>____________________________________________
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship
>e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's
>latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent
>editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship
>e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's
>latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent
>editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]