|
August 3, 2005
There was a letter to the editor in the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution a while back—unfortunately I did not make a note of the date—that lambasted
Senator Casey Cagle
for his sponsorship of SB460, a bill having to do with variances for the state’s 25-foot riparian barrier. Well, this criticism was serious business! I contacted Cagle’s campaign headquarters for a response to this particular letter to the editor because I am very interested in water quality issues. By now you know that Casey Cagle is running for Lt. Governor in 2006, right? He is opposing
Ralph Reed
for the office in the Republican Primary in 2006.
I am interested in what candidates have to say because I try to do my best to select the best candidate for the job. Sometimes you have to do research. More voters should check up on candidates! I needed to check out this riparian barrier criticism because I am keenly aware of the importance of our state’s riparian barriers, which is that undisturbed land that borders our large and small waterways which helps to protect the quality of our water. If the legislators were messing with it in a negative way, I wanted to know!
First, I went to take a look at Senate Bill 460 itself. It isn’t very long as pieces of legislation go, just about a page and a half, so I’ve included a link so you can check it out for yourself:
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2003_04/versions/sb460_As_passed_Senate_13.htm
Here is the response I got from Senator Casey Cagle with regard to that SB460:
FACT CHECK: PROTECTING GEORGIA STREAMS
“The Issue
: Some environmental groups have argued that Senate Bill 460 would result in the destruction of Georgia streams and irreparable harm to the state's environment. However, the hyperbolic attacks directed at this legislation from a handful of environmental groups have little basis in the actual language of the bill for several reasons. Stream buffers are vital to the environmental health of Georgia and Senator Cagle strongly supports robust and effectively enforced buffers.
The Facts
: First, it is important to understand the existing situation with regard to protection of small streams by Georgia's Environmental Protection Division (EPD). As most observers acknowledge, the EPD simply does not have the staff or resources to monitor or investigate violations dealing with very small water flows. In essence, this meant some unscrupulous developers -- knowing they could not get a permit under the old rules -- would simply disturb streams and buffer zones without approval, given their non-existent odds of getting caught. By replacing this situation with a common-sense approval process, we discourage this kind of conduct and create an incentive for landowners to obtain EPD approval of projects near even the smallest waterways.
Secondly, these new state regulations do not pre-empt strict federal statutes protecting wetlands. Existing laws protecting our wetlands remain in place and strictly enforced by the Army Corps of Engineers. And, the new Georgia law allows for variances only after approval from the EPD according to a very specific set of criteria. In essence, these criteria require the landowner to prove that their application will result in a net gain for the environment in terms of reduced pollution. In other words, no one can get a variance under these new rules unless they are able to prove to Georgia's environmental watchdog agency that their application will make downstream water quality better. For example, a builder might replace an aged shopping center -- and its significant stormwater runoff -- with a residential neighborhood full of lawns and parks. The new rules would allow this project because any nearby streams would benefit, but they would not allow the same situation in reverse precisely because of the negative impact on the environment.
Finally, it is important to remember that the image critics conjure up of pristine rushing streams being harmed has no basis in fact. The legislation applies primarily to waterways of less than 25 gallons per minute. Many of these streams are not "streams" at all, but ditches and gullies with water flows only after large rainstorms or very low regular flows. A balanced policy recognizes the difference, and avoids sacrificing environmentally beneficial projects to protect what often amount to gullies or trenches.
In summary, the goal of this new policy is to better protect Georgia's environment by replacing an unenforced rule with a common-sense permitting process. As DNR continues to implement the new rules, we will monitor them closely. Should there be any evidence they are not improving Georgia's environmental health and water quality, we will immediately push for revisions.”
Well, my friends, I really can’t see what that man was complaining about. It seems the bottom line is that no variance will be granted unless the protection to our waterways is improved in some way. If any of you readers can come up with something different, please contact me. Here is a brief commentary about Senate Bill 460 written by
Benita M. Dodd
, vice president of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, to add to our discussion:
http://www.gppf.org/article.asp?RT=20&p=pub/Water/envwater050107.htm
One last comment: My friends, homeowners invade and destroy the riparian barrier all the time. One has only to raft down the Chattahoochee to see green fertilized and chemically saturated lawn coming right down to the river’s edge at some of those pricey riverbank home sites and country clubs. There needs to be a way to educate people about their ignorant destruction of our natural resources. Unfortunately, law enforcement will never know if a homeowner takes a weedeater to his stream bank and destroys the natural vegetation that provides the crucial filter for removing pollutants in the rainwater that enters the stream. Those people deserve a whack upside the head for being so stupid.
I’ve now stepped down off my soapbox. Hope all is well and thanks for reading.
080305
Archives
|
