Ohio faces a two headed hydra when it comes to the impact of the proposed cap-and-trade bill in Congress- the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES):
The Sustainable Cleveland 2019 summit was unlike any other conference or summit I had attended. I have been to plenty where the goal was simply to raise awareness- Typically a parade of talking heads followed up by urgent pleas to do something in the future.
The Cleveland Summit was much different. It took some 700 attendees
Cleveland has is trying to increase momentum toward become a hub of green industry. As a recent Clevelander I appreciate the efforts to promote sustainability, renewable power, and other green industry as a means of attracting jobs and improving the economy. (photo:flickr:heidigoseek)
I have had the luxury of working with many of the
.jpg)
Back in 2006, while I was still at Ohio EPA, a major piece of state legislation worked its way through the General Assembly. Senate Bill 265 was developed by business groups in Ohio to address concerns with the structure and implementation of Ohio air pollution permitting programs. The main target to be fixed was the
With the launch of Leed Version 3, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has increased the rigor of certifications and even issued the threat of "decertification"- losing your building’s green status. USGBC has decided to throw only a pebble into the pond on this round- its still pretty hard to lose your building’s LEED status.
Here is a quick update on some of the important changes that were or were not included in the Ohio Budget (H.B. 1) that impact environmentally related issues and Ohio EPA’s budget:
ERAC Deadlines- As discussed in my previous post, the Ohio Budget included mandatory deadlines placed on ERAC for making determinations on appeals filed before
Buried in the thousand pages of the Ohio Budget Bill (H.B. 1) is an amendment that could have a major impact on hundreds of pending and future appeals of environmental decisions. The budget bill amendment includes language placing strict deadlines for issuing decisions on environmental appeals. The deadlines could impact some very controversial permit appeals, including the
There has been much discussion regarding the use of Land Banks to assist in addressing the aftermath of the foreclosure crisis. Here is an excerpt from the Cleveland Plain Dealer discussing the County’s recently launched non-profit corporate land bank:
Formally launched by the county in April, the new, nonprofit land bank is the first of
Today, a Georgia Appeals Court overturned a lower court’s ruling that invalidated an air permit for a coal-fired power plant on the basis of climate change. In June 20, 2008 Georgia’s Fulton County Superior Court invalidated a permit for construction of a 1200-megawatt coal-fired power plant. The Court said the Georgia Environmental Protection Division should have
On June 18th the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, on a vote of 12-7, passed the amended version of the Clean Water Restoration Act. The proposal is seen by some as an attempt to fix a major hole in the Clean Water Act. Others see it as a major extension of federal regulation. I see it as a State’s rights issue…
The debate over the bill has centered on whether federal jurisdiction should cover essentially all streams and wetlands. (for a discussion of the jurisdiction issue see the extended entry to this post) The hardcore supporters or detractors appear to break into two camps:
If you think I’m painting the camps too dramatically let me provide some examples. First from the protection camp (post on Blue Living Ideas).
Without CWRA, we could return to the times of the Cuyahoga River burning and the Great Lakes smelling like cesspools. The Clean Water Act is important legislation that needs restoration. It’s about birds; it’s about clean water; it’s about drinking water. CWA was intended to protect all of America’s waters from pollution, not just those that are navigable.
Now from the farmer’s perspective (post on Drovers).
Under current law, the federal government has jurisdiction over "navigable waters of the United States." However, by removing the word "navigable" from the definition, the CWRA would expand federal regulatory control to unprecedented levels – essentially putting stock tanks, drainage ditches, any puddle or water feature found on family farms and ranches—potentially even ground water—under the regulatory strong-arm of the federal government.
There are of course other perspective, such as the U.S. Chamber’s. In a letter to the Senate Committee the U.S. Chamber opposes the Clean Water Restoration Act because it fears the expansive language will be used by citizen groups to stop development projects:
It has been well-documented that deletion of the term “navigable” from the definition of “waters of the United States” could lead to the unnecessary expansion of the CWA to certain intrastate waters. The bill does attempt to address this problem by listing the specific types of waters explicitly covered by the CWA and exempting others. However, the Chamber’s primary concern is that, despite the good intentions of the Committee in negotiating a compromise, S.787 as drafted is still subject to manipulation by activist groups whose only goal is to stop development.
Lost in the debate seems to be Republican notions of federalism. When it comes to environmental protection, States seem to often loose the argument that they can craft better regulations or even be trusted to adopt any regulation at all.
The lack of trust makes groups push hard for federal regulation, which is unfortunate because State crafted water quality regulatory programs should be a much better alternative. Here are some reasons why an expanded Ohio jurisdiction over waterways and wetlands may be preferable to "putting all waters under federal protection."
A state water permit program is not only a possibility, it was proposed by Ohio EPA in the fall of 2008 in response to shrinking federal regulation. The State’s proposal has met with significant resistance which has slowed the rule development process down to a crawl. However, for the reasons articulated above perhaps its worth reconsidering positions on the proposal.
Those groups opposing both the Clean Water Restoration Act and Ohio EPA’s proposed Water Quality Permit Program must realize they will not get it both ways. There is too much support for protecting streams and wetlands to have no regulatory program in place. Without a strong push for State regulation, the default will be to push for federal regulation.
To fend off federal regulation through adoption of effective state regulation, supporters must address the perception of many that State’s engage in a "race to the bottom" when enacting environmental regulation. Federal legislation like the Clean Water Restoration Act get pushed because fear by many groups that if regulation is left up to the State’s they will all compete to have the least amount of protections or requirements.
(Photo: Colin Gregory Palmer/everystockphoto.com)Continue Reading Clean Water Restoration Act- Federal Expansion or Restoring Protections?