If Steve is correct, then my "very good" comment needs to be revised.  Ahem.

Bill


Quoting Stephen W Veysey <[log in to unmask]>:

> Hello
>
> HSB 267 is 23 pages long, single spaced.  The bill makes changes to 37
> separate sections of the Iowa Code disbursed in the following chapters:
>
> 331 355 362 427 441 459 455B 456B 462A
>
> With legislation of this sort, the devil is always in the details,
> especially when the bill is well intentioned.  It is impossible to
> protect the implementation of the bill without carefully scrutinizing
> the effect of every change to every existing Iowa Code section
> referenced in the bill.  Forces opposed to the bill will attempt to
> insert particular language, seemingly innocuous, at key places in the
> bill.  They have lots of paid staff who are very good at this.
>
> For example, the bill provides a special separation distance of 5280
> feet to "high quality" water resources in the state that are not
> tourism destinations, and 10560 to "high quality" water resources that
> are tourism destinations.  Sounds good and quite encompassing, but
> there are two problems.  First, only tourism destinations specifically
> "designated" by DNR qualify.  Since there are no rules in place for DNR
> to use, these will have to be developed from scratch (against great
> opposition) before any "high quality" water resource will receive the
> two-mile protection.
>
> Which brings up the even greater problem.  The "high quality"
> designation as assigned in our water quality standards includes only 50
> stream or river segments totalling only 342 miles (Iowa has about
> 25,000 miles of perennial rivers and streams).  Of the 50 streams, 47
> are B(CW).... trout streams!!!... which this bill exempts from the
> protection!!!  Only three short segments of the Turkey River would
> receive the one mile or two mile protection afforded by this section of
> the bill.
>
> In addition to the 50 streams, there are 7 lakes designated as "high
> quality", covering 10,249 acres.  Of these seven, five of them are the
> Iowa Great Lakes.  The other two are very small spring fed
> impoundments, one in Jackson and one in Winneshiek.  And by the way,
> there are no DNR procedures in place to allow additional water
> resources to be designated as "high quality".
>
> So this section of the bill accomplishes little except to perhaps
> neutralize the local control voices in Dickenson county by giving extra
> separation distance protection to the Great Lakes.  Period.
>
> Every section of the bill needs to be scrutinized in this fashion,
> along with every change negotiated along the way.  It is always about
> how the language translates to actual implementation.
>
> Steve Veysey, Conservation Co-chair
> Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
> http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

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

Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp