Home >  Health & Science >  Environment

They say Legislature is rushing through industry-friendly plan

Monday, November 25, 2002

By Don Hopey, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

Pennsylvania's creeks, streams and rivers have suffered through three years of low flows caused by near drought conditions, and 18 environmental, conservation and sportsmen's groups say a water-use planning bill now before the General Assembly would only make matters worse.

The groups -- including such mainstream organizations as the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy and the Pennsylvania Environmental Council -- say the legislation will not provide an accurate accounting of water use in the commonwealth and will do little to solve increasingly serious water shortages and conflicts between water users.

"We agree there needs to be water legislation, but this bill has a weak water use reporting requirement and sets up unbalanced regional and statewide water boards dominated by water users," said Larry Schweiger, president of the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy.

"It's the equivalent of packing the Public Utility Commission with members of the major electric utility companies."

The 40-page bill, written in consultation with industry, mining, agribusiness and development interests and introduced last week with the support of the Schweiker administration, is scheduled for a vote as early as today. It is being rushed through the lame-duck session of the Legislature without debate or any public hearing.

The existing state water plan is 30 years old and fails to identify which areas of the state have critical water quality and quantity needs, or to settle disputes over water usage. It also does not place any limits on how much water can be drawn and used from creeks or rivers.

The new legislation, Senate Bill 10, gives the state no power to limit withdrawals from waterways and ensure that enough water is left to sustain water quality, fish and other aquatic life and recreational uses such as rafting or canoeing.

It authorizes the DEP to collect information on water use from any business, industry, development or agricultural operation that uses more than 10,000 gallons of water a day.

But it also includes, as a last-minute concession to large water users -- public water suppliers, the mining industry, large feedlot and farming corporations -- a provision that could allow the state water board to waive reporting requirements and make any record-keeping and reporting of water use optional.

State Environmental Protection Secretary David Hess, whose department would have to share some of its decision-making power with a 24-member Statewide Water Resources Committee dominated by industry and major water users, defended the legislation as necessary to make sure "Pennsylvania has an abundant supply of water for the future."

Hess said some "drafting errors" in the bill introduced by Sen. Mary Jo White, R-Venango County, were corrected Thursday, making it more palatable to conservation groups. For instance, the bill now preserves the waterway protections of the state Clean Streams Law and DEP's authority to enforce it.

But John Hanger, president of Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future, said Hess' defense of the rush to pass the water planning bill and put a board in place before a new administration takes over in Harrisburg next year is "transparently self-serving."

Hanger said the legislation puts power over water withdrawals from public rivers and streams into the hands of the state's biggest water users.

"This bad bill is all dressed up in reassuring language, but when you strip away the spin, you find the fox in charge of the henhouse," Hanger said.

DEP's own Citizens Advisory Council expressed its concerns with the Water Resources Planning Act Tuesday in a letter to the General Assembly, calling the legislation "inadequate."

The council objects to the water use reporting waiver provision and the authority granted to the statewide water board for setting water use policy. It also criticizes the bill for failing to address water management and policy implementation.

Although the DEP says the bill language is a consensus of groups and interests, it was primarily fashioned by industry, development, water suppliers and mining representatives during meetings with the DEP in Harrisburg over the summer.

Even some of those participants oppose the final product.

Jodi Corrado, a spokeswoman for Pennsylvania-American Water Co., said the company worked closely with DEP for two years on the legislation but doesn't support the final bill.

"We feel the DEP and not the board should have final authority on water use decisions," Corrado said. "We also feel the water industry should have more representatives on the board."

Hess admitted that water suppliers are "divided" in their support of the bill but defended the authority that would be granted to the board.

"It would be a collaborative process that requires agreement between the board and the department and we see that as good."

In an attempt to avoid debate and amendments, the Senate Water Resources Planning Act may be added as an amendment to a bill re-authorizing the recycling fee program, which has already passed the state House.

Hess denied it would be attached to the recycling bill but said it will probably be attached to another bill that has already been approved by the House.