ICIE’s Annual Membership Meeting program in November examined three issues which we have been following for years. The issues of the salmon Biological Opinion (BiOp) and bull trout critical habitat are related to the Endangered Species Act. The NPDES General Permit relates to the Clean Water Act. What they all have in common is a history of third party lawsuits, followed by revised consultations or regulations, and additional lawsuits against the revision. The result is these three issues have existed in a state of legal limbo for a decade or more with no actual resolution.
ESA/salmon BiOp/pestcide consultation issue driven by litigation
Background: In 1996, Congress passed a law requiring a re-evaluation of pesticides to be done by 2008 with concern focused on the impact on human health. In 2001, the Washington Toxics Coalition joined three other environmental activist groups in filing a lawsuit contending that EPA had violated the Endangered Species Act by not consulting with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) when EPA issued new guidelines for the use of three widely-used pesticides. A U.S. district judge ruled that EPA had to complete a consultation by December, 2004.
Since that time there have been numerous injunctions, consultations and additional lawsuits on both sides of the issue.
Dirk Helder, of the Idaho Operations Office of the EPA, presented an update on the status of this issue at ICIE’s 2010 Annual Meeting. The lawsuit affects 115 counties in the Northwest: 40 in California, 33 in Washington, 32 in Oregon and 10 in Idaho. It addresses impacts on salmon in freshwater habitats, including “intermittent streams, off-channel habitats, drainages and man-made conveyances that lack salmonid exclusion devices.”
The latest Biological Opinion (BiOp) establishes target concentrations and buffer zones based on the width and depth of the river, air vs. ground application, the application rate, and the application equipment (droplet size). It sets a maximum wind speed of 10 mile per hour and requires reporting of fish mortality up to four days after application.
The problem is the consultation process of establishing BiOps is broken, says Heather Hansen of the Washington Friends of Farms and Forests. She asserts that when the Endangered Species Act was written, the consultation process was envisioned as a way to address what is going on in a specific place at a specific time.
Pesticide consultations need to be ongoing, she says. When salmon were listed, the National Marine Fisheries Services exploded in chaos. That was ten years ago, but they haven’t really come up with a structure for dealing with salmon going inland and the terrestrial issues associated with it.
Hansen says the NMFS didn’t use current labels or current monitoring data in establishing this BiOp. They used their own rather than EPA models and made invalid assumptions based upon incorrect data. Financial impact studies haven’t been conducted. User groups haven’t had input, neither have the registrants.
"The folks at EPA are as frustrated as everyone else with this process," Hansen says.
Hansen notes that a potential solution is oversight of the relationship between the NMFS and the EPA. Re-initiate consultation on the first three BIOs. Ultimately, the end game is that we need a functional, clear pesticide registration process to prevent future litigation.
A resolution passed by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture asks that the EPA and NMFS and USFWS establish a process that includes stakeholder input, defines “best available science” and has a process to evaluate effect. BiOps must include “targets” for pesticide levels and must include an economic assessment.
Ongoing, there’s a lawsuit against NMFS on BiOp 1. Grower groups have petitioned EPA for a rulemaking on how the BiOp is implemented, and CropLife America has filed a petition with NMFS to clarify stakeholders’ rights for input into the process. There is further litigation likely, Hansen says, that could bring the whole country into this problem.
NPDES General Permit Issue: Specifics confound applicators
In 2006, the EPA issued a pesticides rule under the Clean Water Act (CWA) stipulating that the application of a pesticide did not constitute the discharge of a pollutant, and therefore did not require an NPDES permit when it was applied to, over, or near waters of the US for control of pests. That rule was challenged when an organic farmer in Gem County, Idaho, who didn’t want applications drifting over his crops and filed a lawsuit against the local mosquito abatement district. The court ruled that the application had been made following the label, but should have been made under an NPDES permit. This resulted in a ruling by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that such a permit is required as of April, 2011. The EPA recommended a Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for the six states which do not have primacy under the CWA which includes Idaho. The other 44 states have primacy and have their own permit programs which must be revised to comply with this new ruling by April, 2011, as well.
The pesticide uses that will come under this Pesticide General Permit include: mosquito and other flying insect control; aquatic weed and algae; aquatic nuisance animal control; forest canopy pest control; and pesticide application to water.
Areas that will not require the PGP include: applications to crops or forest floors; off target spray drift; irrigation return flow from agricultural fields; and agricultural storm water runoff.
A notice of intent will be required by some applicators in Idaho: Federal/state government with pest control function; Irrigation, weed, mosquito control districts; application above threshold.
The PGP will also require monitoring of management practices and visual monitoring for adverse effects. Water quality based effluent limits will need to be monitored to evaluate water quality. Applicators will need to conform to best management practices, which most do, but if they don’t, they will need to use the lowest amount of pesticide effective; keep their equipment calibrated, clean, and in good working order; and perform regular maintenance. There are other opportunities to control pest problems that can be looked into – draining swimming pools, emptying out flower pots, etc.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are also included in the permit.
Water users frustrated by lack of science and input
Norm Semanko, with the Idaho Water Users Association, points out that all of these activities are already regulated under FIFRA labeling requirements. The user groups are feeling a growing frustration. There has been little fact, little science and little input going into these requirements, he says.
Water users are concerned with the permit process. In 2001-2002, there was a low priority enforcement letter that gave applicators the discretion to operate as they had been. Another EPA decision said that the farmers were exempt from the point source as defined by EPA. Then EPA said that farmers are covered as long as they’re following the label. Then the rule making in 2006 came that said this was the rule. Everyone filed a lawsuit against this rule. However, the court decided that pesticides were ruled as a pollutant and worthy of regulation.
Semanko says the EPA defended the rule up to the point where the 6th Circuit threatened a review, then EPA abandoned it. Their subsequent assertion that they have no choice but abide by the court decision is misleading.
“For them to say ‘the court told us to do this’ is disingenuous,” Semanko says. “The case was weaker than indicated. We are here because EPA chose to abandon this rule.”
Semanko also notes areas of vagueness, such as requirements for visual monitoring versus sampling, requirements for record keeping, and when a permit is required versus a letter of intent. These areas open multiple opportunities for third party lawsuits. The process leaves growers and others vulnerable. He predicts oversight from Congress, citing three bills already in Congress that would overturn the 6th Circuit decision.
It’s not just the 6 states, the federal and the tribal lands, but all the other states that are responsible for the NPDES permit development in their states. Are they going to develop a new process to comply with the court order? Are they are really going to be done by April 2011, or should the EPA go in and ask for a stay on this deadline since it’s not fair to treat 6 states different than everyone else?
The water user community also has concerns about terms like “minimizing the discharge of pollutants” that insinuate that water users have to go beyond the requirements under FIFRA. How will visual monitoring be sufficient over sampling is another question.
The definition of “waters of the United States,” is very broad. It appears that EPA wants to expand its definition beyond what is stated in the CWA.
The growers will be vulnerable to third-part lawsuits despite the fact that EPA does not intend that to happen.
Semanko predicts there will be oversight by Congress. There are already 3 bills in Congress that would overturn the decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Bull Trout Critical Habitat
Ted Koch, USFWS Bull Trout Coordinator, notes that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) just published a final rule on critical habitat that took effect the week before the annual meeting. The FWS does not see this as a significant shift from the previous critical habitat designation. The agency is not seeking new opportunities to regulate under this rule.
“I can state pretty clearly that the FWS doesn’t see any reduction in state primacy as a result of this rule,” Koch says, acknowledging that his organization is speaking with the Bureau of Reclamation about issues brought up by water users, and that third party litigation is a current concern.
The endangered species listing program, and critical habitat listing program is all driven by litigation, Koch says. Bull trout critical habitat came up, and FWS published a final rule in 2005 reducing the amount of critical habitat by 75%, and then the agency was sued, resulting in a new rule that looks more like the 2004 rule.
Koch says the concerns brought from water users have to do with the Nez Perce agreement settlement within in the Snake River Plain adjudication process. The FWS is a part of that process and aligned with the water users and others involved in the process.
Semanko notes that this rule has been finalized, establishing “anywhere that could be habitat for bull trout,” as critical habitat.
The issues water users have with the new rule is the inclusion of reservoirs. These are the project areas for the water users, and they’re crying foul on this addition, resulting in two separate BiOps. Semanko says the environmental community is closely watching this process.
When critical habitat is identified as “bank full reservoirs,” there will be issues, Semanko says. The potential impacts to those who own water in that reservoir system are pretty staggering. In the case of specific water users, the downstream flows can result in little or no water in a given year. Koch maintains that the minimum pool provisions address the issue of “bank full reservoir” regulation.
It isn’t that the FWS issued critical habitat designations. It is the way they did it. Under the rules, the FWS needs to look at the economic impacts, and weigh the costs and benefits to the community as well as the species. Semanko says potential costs of the rule were not considered in relation to the minimal or no benefit to the species. These costs include those to recreational users of reservoirs, of increased damage by flood impacts, and costs to water users for the changes in water quality. This was a procedural failure that will favor the environmental groups. This does relate back to what’s going on with the Upper Snake River BIOps and the downstream BIOps.
Then there is the question of how we get these fish off the ESA list. Peer reviewed scientific data show that there are a lot of healthy populations in Idaho. We also have to worry about North Central Montana, and Eastern Oregon. There are three habitats in Idaho that feed into these. De-listing will depend upon the status of those other areas beyond Idaho.
If the fish were delisted, it would end all the regulatory nonsense, Semanko says. He does not see, however, how this can happen before the wolf situation has been addressed. The other solution would be to reopen the rule, and delete those segments from the critical habitat list because FWS did not do an adequate job of addressing the cost/benefit ratio.
Koch says both the Bush and the Obama administrations have agreed that the critical habitat provisions of the ESA are unworkable. He says there’s bipartisan recognition of the need to fix the Endangered Species Act.
“For 15 years, we tried to avoid listing critical habitat but got litigated into submission by environmentalists.”
Monday, December 20, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Practical Paths 2010: Understanding the Science and Politics of Climate Change
When: Tuesday, September 28 and Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 9 am to 5 pm
Where: Holiday Inn, Boise
Cost: $65 for full day registration, $35 for either Tuesday or Wednesday, by 9/23/10
When it comes to the issue of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, some assert that there is consensus among scientists and the debate is over. Others disagree. Regardless of which side of the debate one is on, most agree that there are likely to be significant political, environmental, economic and life style consequences of any major policy decision on this issue.
The Idaho Council on Industry and Environment and the Idaho Office of the Northwest Power & Conservation Council are sponsoring Practical Paths: Understanding the Science and Politics of Climate Change workshop at the Airport Holiday Inn in Boise, Idaho, Tuesday, September 28 and Wednesday, September 29.
The workshop will examine the scientific method, and what it tells us (or fails to tell us) about climate change. After over two decades of research, why are the various camps still questioning each other? What role does computer modeling play, how accurate is the data, and how do the resulting forecasts and uncertainty around them translate into actionable conclusions?
Our speakers will also outline and examine current legislative and regulatory efforts to impact climate change, and their relative success compared to other public policy options.
For a full, draft agenda and online registration, visit http://www.icie.org/.
Sponsorship and advertising opportunities are available. Contact ICIE Executive Director, Pat Barclay at patbarclay@icie.org, or 208-336-8508.
Where: Holiday Inn, Boise
Cost: $65 for full day registration, $35 for either Tuesday or Wednesday, by 9/23/10
When it comes to the issue of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, some assert that there is consensus among scientists and the debate is over. Others disagree. Regardless of which side of the debate one is on, most agree that there are likely to be significant political, environmental, economic and life style consequences of any major policy decision on this issue.
The Idaho Council on Industry and Environment and the Idaho Office of the Northwest Power & Conservation Council are sponsoring Practical Paths: Understanding the Science and Politics of Climate Change workshop at the Airport Holiday Inn in Boise, Idaho, Tuesday, September 28 and Wednesday, September 29.
The workshop will examine the scientific method, and what it tells us (or fails to tell us) about climate change. After over two decades of research, why are the various camps still questioning each other? What role does computer modeling play, how accurate is the data, and how do the resulting forecasts and uncertainty around them translate into actionable conclusions?
Our speakers will also outline and examine current legislative and regulatory efforts to impact climate change, and their relative success compared to other public policy options.
For a full, draft agenda and online registration, visit http://www.icie.org/.
Sponsorship and advertising opportunities are available. Contact ICIE Executive Director, Pat Barclay at patbarclay@icie.org, or 208-336-8508.
Monday, June 28, 2010
EPA presentation on draft permit for pesticide discharges met with spirited comments from water users, other stakeholders.
In a June 16, 2010, meeting in Boise, representatives from the US EPA presented information clarifying a draft NPDES General Permit for pesticide discharges that has been submitted for public comment.
While the meeting was presented as an opportunity to ask for clarification and pose questions in order to have a better understanding of the permit, EPA representatives noted that testimony on the permit would not be taken at the time. Testimony on the draft permit must be made in writing via hand delivery, US mail or online. The public comment on the draft permit extends through July 19.
Allison Wiedeman, Chief of the Rural Branch, Water Permits Division, noted that drafting this permit has been one of the most challenging issues in her 30 years with the EPA. The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned EPA’s 2006 rule that said pesticides were not pollutants under the Clean Water Act and their application did not require NPDES permits. Rather than appeal the decision, EPA asked the court for time to develop a general NPDES permit.
Wiedeman says her department has talked with hundreds of groups including growers and applicators, manufacturers, NRCS, USDA and the state regulatory authorities as part of this process. This draft permit is, she says, the best shot at a balance between environmental protection and feasibility and practicality.
Presentation slides are available from the website: http://www.regulations.gov/, along with the 112-page fact sheet and FAQ.
Presentation Highlights:
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act that said pesticides are not pollutants is wrong.
At the time of this decision, the EPA asked the court for two years to develop a general permit for which industry could apply. After the public comment period, the permit will be finalized in December. EPA has until April 9, 2011 for implementation. The 2006 regulation that determines that permits are not necessary is still in effect today, but only until next spring.
The permit EPA has proposed applies only to the 6 states that do not have primacy—Alaska, Idaho, New Mexico, Oklahoma, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Forty-four states have their own state process for permitting. These states have some flexibility in developing their own permits, as long as they support the same kind of protection or are more stringent than the EPA’s permit.
EPA is proposing a structure whereby a general permit would be necessary if an entity is determined to be a point source, and is discharging into Waters of the US. Individual operators would apply for coverage under the general permit without going through their own, separate public process. EPA representatives hope this will cut down on the number of individual permit applications.
For the purpose of this draft, pesticide uses covered under the permit include:
- Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Control
- Aquatic Weed and Algae Control
- Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control
- Forest Canopy Pest Control
Some pesticide uses are not included:
- Terrestrial applications to control pests on agricultural crops or forest floors
- Off target spray drift
Activities exempt from permitting under the Clean Water Act:
- Irrigation Return Flow
- Agricultural Storm Water Runoff
The application of pesticides for control of terrestrial pests associated with crop production is not covered under EPA’s NPDES PGP.
In addition, discharges of pesticides to water bodies that are already considered impaired for the specific pesticide in question are not covered under the permit. It may be that in that instance, an operator would need to apply for an individual permit. EPA officials say they don’t anticipate this will happen very often.
Operators under this umbrella permit would be required to submit Notices of Intent (NOIs) to discharge pesticides.
Operators would be required to prepare plans for monitoring pesticide discharge. Monitoring should include visual monitoring for adverse incidents during and after application and monitoring of management practices.
Operators would also be required to provide:
- Annual documentation of pesticide application activities, and
- Adverse Incident reporting to help EPA identify possible permit violations where the permit may need modification to further protect water quality.
Questions and Comments reveal anxiety over costs, red tape, and lawsuits
Some audience members were undeterred by the fact that official public statements would not be recorded for consideration. Comments directed at the panel were prolific and largely critical of the draft EPA permit.
Norm Semanko with the Idaho Water Users Association asked why the EPA didn’t seek review of this court decision. In his mind, the EPA didn’t exhaust all avenues of appeal. EPA representatives noted that their legal counsel advised them that such efforts had little chance of success.
Scott Campbell, a water user attorney vented his frustration to the panel.
“This rule not only angers me to the depth of my soul, but it saddens me that people are being exposed to this kind of red tape and exposure to law suits and giving environmental terrorist ammunition to anyone who wants to file a notice of intent,” he said.
Other respondents commented that the record keeping and reporting requirements placed an undue burden on operators.
Roger Batt of the Idaho Weed Awareness Campaign asked about the relationship between the permit and the standards as outlined by FIFRA, which covers the correct application of pesticides. EPA representatives noted that the idea is to minimize the discharge of pollutants, but Batt noted that this can subject someone to the threat of third-party lawsuits.
Another audience member asked the panel if they had considered homeowners, who often overuse pesticides and other products on their lawns and gardens.
“The poor people who are feeding over 90 percent of the population are unduly burdened,” Campbell said of the impact of this permit to the agricultural industry.
Comments may be submitted online at http://www.regulations.gov/. Click the “submit a comment” link near the top of the page. Enter the key word: DPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257. Click the orange “search” link which will pull up one item: The PGP docket. Click the blue “submit a comment” link and complete the form provided and upload your file. For more information, visit: www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides.
While the meeting was presented as an opportunity to ask for clarification and pose questions in order to have a better understanding of the permit, EPA representatives noted that testimony on the permit would not be taken at the time. Testimony on the draft permit must be made in writing via hand delivery, US mail or online. The public comment on the draft permit extends through July 19.
Allison Wiedeman, Chief of the Rural Branch, Water Permits Division, noted that drafting this permit has been one of the most challenging issues in her 30 years with the EPA. The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned EPA’s 2006 rule that said pesticides were not pollutants under the Clean Water Act and their application did not require NPDES permits. Rather than appeal the decision, EPA asked the court for time to develop a general NPDES permit.
Wiedeman says her department has talked with hundreds of groups including growers and applicators, manufacturers, NRCS, USDA and the state regulatory authorities as part of this process. This draft permit is, she says, the best shot at a balance between environmental protection and feasibility and practicality.
Presentation slides are available from the website: http://www.regulations.gov/, along with the 112-page fact sheet and FAQ.
Presentation Highlights:
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act that said pesticides are not pollutants is wrong.
At the time of this decision, the EPA asked the court for two years to develop a general permit for which industry could apply. After the public comment period, the permit will be finalized in December. EPA has until April 9, 2011 for implementation. The 2006 regulation that determines that permits are not necessary is still in effect today, but only until next spring.
The permit EPA has proposed applies only to the 6 states that do not have primacy—Alaska, Idaho, New Mexico, Oklahoma, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Forty-four states have their own state process for permitting. These states have some flexibility in developing their own permits, as long as they support the same kind of protection or are more stringent than the EPA’s permit.
EPA is proposing a structure whereby a general permit would be necessary if an entity is determined to be a point source, and is discharging into Waters of the US. Individual operators would apply for coverage under the general permit without going through their own, separate public process. EPA representatives hope this will cut down on the number of individual permit applications.
For the purpose of this draft, pesticide uses covered under the permit include:
- Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Control
- Aquatic Weed and Algae Control
- Aquatic Nuisance Animal Control
- Forest Canopy Pest Control
Some pesticide uses are not included:
- Terrestrial applications to control pests on agricultural crops or forest floors
- Off target spray drift
Activities exempt from permitting under the Clean Water Act:
- Irrigation Return Flow
- Agricultural Storm Water Runoff
The application of pesticides for control of terrestrial pests associated with crop production is not covered under EPA’s NPDES PGP.
In addition, discharges of pesticides to water bodies that are already considered impaired for the specific pesticide in question are not covered under the permit. It may be that in that instance, an operator would need to apply for an individual permit. EPA officials say they don’t anticipate this will happen very often.
Operators under this umbrella permit would be required to submit Notices of Intent (NOIs) to discharge pesticides.
Operators would be required to prepare plans for monitoring pesticide discharge. Monitoring should include visual monitoring for adverse incidents during and after application and monitoring of management practices.
Operators would also be required to provide:
- Annual documentation of pesticide application activities, and
- Adverse Incident reporting to help EPA identify possible permit violations where the permit may need modification to further protect water quality.
Questions and Comments reveal anxiety over costs, red tape, and lawsuits
Some audience members were undeterred by the fact that official public statements would not be recorded for consideration. Comments directed at the panel were prolific and largely critical of the draft EPA permit.
Norm Semanko with the Idaho Water Users Association asked why the EPA didn’t seek review of this court decision. In his mind, the EPA didn’t exhaust all avenues of appeal. EPA representatives noted that their legal counsel advised them that such efforts had little chance of success.
Scott Campbell, a water user attorney vented his frustration to the panel.
“This rule not only angers me to the depth of my soul, but it saddens me that people are being exposed to this kind of red tape and exposure to law suits and giving environmental terrorist ammunition to anyone who wants to file a notice of intent,” he said.
Other respondents commented that the record keeping and reporting requirements placed an undue burden on operators.
Roger Batt of the Idaho Weed Awareness Campaign asked about the relationship between the permit and the standards as outlined by FIFRA, which covers the correct application of pesticides. EPA representatives noted that the idea is to minimize the discharge of pollutants, but Batt noted that this can subject someone to the threat of third-party lawsuits.
Another audience member asked the panel if they had considered homeowners, who often overuse pesticides and other products on their lawns and gardens.
“The poor people who are feeding over 90 percent of the population are unduly burdened,” Campbell said of the impact of this permit to the agricultural industry.
Comments may be submitted online at http://www.regulations.gov/. Click the “submit a comment” link near the top of the page. Enter the key word: DPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257. Click the orange “search” link which will pull up one item: The PGP docket. Click the blue “submit a comment” link and complete the form provided and upload your file. For more information, visit: www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Newly appointed EPA Administrator gives overview of environmental issues
Dennis McLerran was appointed Administrator for EPA’s Region 10 in January. He spoke to the Idaho Environmental Forum on Tuesday, April 6, 2010.
McLerran noted that he has experience working in local government and has worked on air quality issues in a large urban area, Seattle, and in the smaller community of Port Townsend. He has been on the other side of the fence in private practice as an attorney. He has family ties to Mackay, Idaho, as well.
He voiced his admiration for EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
McLerran outlined the Obama administration’s priorities for the Environmental Protection Agency:
· Climate change: EPA announced its endangerment finding regarding carbon as a pollutant in the absence of any action by Congress to control carbon emissions. The agency put together tailpipe rules for automobiles using a collaboration that included the auto industry and the State of California. The rules will go into effect in January, 2011.
In addition, EPA is looking at regulating large sources of CO2 emissions first with a tailoring rule in January 2011. This will include power plants and very large emitters.
What Congress does in the next year or two will have an impact on what EPA will pursue.
· Air quality: EPA will be setting tighter standards for fine particulate like that found in wood smoke or diesel. New ozone standards will be coming out in late spring or early summer. It is possible that they will be set at .06 or .065 which would mean that the Treasure Valley will be classified as a non-attainment area. He did mention the state’s auto emissions programs for the area. There could also be new standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides along freeways.
· Mercury: Idaho has been ground zero for impacts from surrounding states. He commended us for the work we are doing on mercury emissions. DEQ is collecting elemental mercury and EPA has funded mercury contamination cleanups in the last three years. There is still a ways to go in dealing with mercury, he said.
· Safety of chemicals: Work needs to be done to rewrite the toxic substances statute.
· Superfund communities: there is still cleaning up to be done. For Idaho, that means the Silver Valley, a massive superfund site on which a great deal of time, energy and dollars has been spent. Now blood levels in children are down to the national average rather than being way above it. This is still controversial but EPA is moving ahead.
· Protecting American waters: We need to make more progress on this, especially with nutrient loads and stormwater runoff. We need to do more than the traditional methods. We should be looking at trading schemes in Idaho and Washington. Nutrient problems in streams are a big issue. We need to develop innovative programs to deal with that. McLerran encouraged the group to look at innovation to improve water quality in the Boise River.
· Environmental justice: This is on Lisa Jackson’s list of priorities. EPA will be working with the tribes and low income populations to understand the needs of low income communities. The agency will be reaching out to these communities to help improve children’s health.
McLerran stressed that it is not EPA’s job to punish states for the economic crisis. The agency would like to figure out a way to make progress during these tough times. Water quality monitoring in Idaho has been suspended because of budget cuts at DEQ, but that cannot go on indefinitely. Perhaps a partnering program with EPA and the use of loaned employees might be a solution.
HUD, DoT and EPA are trying a partnership to drive highway and housing funds in ways that mutually re-enforce the missions of the three agencies.
During questioning, McLerran discussed the cement plant in eastern Oregon, saying that Oregon’s plan may not do enough to lower mercury emissions.
One audience member cited Industrial livestock (CAFO) operations as one of the biggest environmental problems. She said that antibiotics and endocrine disrupters are showing up in drinking water, and that sampling shows that 22% of homes have nitrates above safe drinking water levels. This, she says, is driving people to have to buy drinking water at Wal-Mart.
When asked if carbon trading in going to be included in the analysis of water quality issues. McLerran responded that EPA was in the formative stages on CO2 issues. Carbon trading is not on the radar screen right now. If Congress acts in that area, things would change. He is hoping that Congress will step in.
NPDES permitting, wastewater treatment and phosphate issues are among priorities in Idaho. EPA will be the point on NPDES permits. That is a priority for the region.
Another person asked about the proposed MACT standard for wood-fired boilers which would discourage the use woody biomass. McLerran responded that we would have to find a balance.
McLerran encouraged people to submit additional comments. With the increase in CAFÉ standards for automobiles, any insights in consumer innovative technologies would be welcome. These could include aerodynamic improvements, better fuel combustion, turbo charging and plug-in hybrids.
McLerran noted that he has experience working in local government and has worked on air quality issues in a large urban area, Seattle, and in the smaller community of Port Townsend. He has been on the other side of the fence in private practice as an attorney. He has family ties to Mackay, Idaho, as well.
He voiced his admiration for EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
McLerran outlined the Obama administration’s priorities for the Environmental Protection Agency:
· Climate change: EPA announced its endangerment finding regarding carbon as a pollutant in the absence of any action by Congress to control carbon emissions. The agency put together tailpipe rules for automobiles using a collaboration that included the auto industry and the State of California. The rules will go into effect in January, 2011.
In addition, EPA is looking at regulating large sources of CO2 emissions first with a tailoring rule in January 2011. This will include power plants and very large emitters.
What Congress does in the next year or two will have an impact on what EPA will pursue.
· Air quality: EPA will be setting tighter standards for fine particulate like that found in wood smoke or diesel. New ozone standards will be coming out in late spring or early summer. It is possible that they will be set at .06 or .065 which would mean that the Treasure Valley will be classified as a non-attainment area. He did mention the state’s auto emissions programs for the area. There could also be new standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides along freeways.
· Mercury: Idaho has been ground zero for impacts from surrounding states. He commended us for the work we are doing on mercury emissions. DEQ is collecting elemental mercury and EPA has funded mercury contamination cleanups in the last three years. There is still a ways to go in dealing with mercury, he said.
· Safety of chemicals: Work needs to be done to rewrite the toxic substances statute.
· Superfund communities: there is still cleaning up to be done. For Idaho, that means the Silver Valley, a massive superfund site on which a great deal of time, energy and dollars has been spent. Now blood levels in children are down to the national average rather than being way above it. This is still controversial but EPA is moving ahead.
· Protecting American waters: We need to make more progress on this, especially with nutrient loads and stormwater runoff. We need to do more than the traditional methods. We should be looking at trading schemes in Idaho and Washington. Nutrient problems in streams are a big issue. We need to develop innovative programs to deal with that. McLerran encouraged the group to look at innovation to improve water quality in the Boise River.
· Environmental justice: This is on Lisa Jackson’s list of priorities. EPA will be working with the tribes and low income populations to understand the needs of low income communities. The agency will be reaching out to these communities to help improve children’s health.
McLerran stressed that it is not EPA’s job to punish states for the economic crisis. The agency would like to figure out a way to make progress during these tough times. Water quality monitoring in Idaho has been suspended because of budget cuts at DEQ, but that cannot go on indefinitely. Perhaps a partnering program with EPA and the use of loaned employees might be a solution.
HUD, DoT and EPA are trying a partnership to drive highway and housing funds in ways that mutually re-enforce the missions of the three agencies.
During questioning, McLerran discussed the cement plant in eastern Oregon, saying that Oregon’s plan may not do enough to lower mercury emissions.
One audience member cited Industrial livestock (CAFO) operations as one of the biggest environmental problems. She said that antibiotics and endocrine disrupters are showing up in drinking water, and that sampling shows that 22% of homes have nitrates above safe drinking water levels. This, she says, is driving people to have to buy drinking water at Wal-Mart.
When asked if carbon trading in going to be included in the analysis of water quality issues. McLerran responded that EPA was in the formative stages on CO2 issues. Carbon trading is not on the radar screen right now. If Congress acts in that area, things would change. He is hoping that Congress will step in.
NPDES permitting, wastewater treatment and phosphate issues are among priorities in Idaho. EPA will be the point on NPDES permits. That is a priority for the region.
Another person asked about the proposed MACT standard for wood-fired boilers which would discourage the use woody biomass. McLerran responded that we would have to find a balance.
McLerran encouraged people to submit additional comments. With the increase in CAFÉ standards for automobiles, any insights in consumer innovative technologies would be welcome. These could include aerodynamic improvements, better fuel combustion, turbo charging and plug-in hybrids.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Aerobic Garbage Reduction
While the legislature is rumored to be heading toward adjournment sine die by Friday, March 26, some legislation other than budget-related has been introduced, passed committees in both House and Senate and passed on the floors for both chambers. One of the most interesting, dealing with land fills, was introduced on February 25th.
HB 599 allows the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality to review, approve, and issue research, development and demonstration permits for design, construction and operation of bioreactor landfill operations.
There are currently 70 bioreactor landfills in operation in the country. Bioreactor landfills work by breaking down waste and converting it to other useful purposes over the course of years instead of decades, reducing the need to site new landfills as frequently. They also produce electricity by expanded production of methane gas.
The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), characterizes a bioreactor landfill as that in which "liquid and gas conditions are actively managed in order to accelerate or enhance biostabilization of the waste... significantly increasing the extent of organic waste decomposition, conversion rates, and process effectiveness over what would otherwise occur with the landfill.”
In basic terms, it takes the addition of liquid and air to increase decomposition. Regular landfill waste often does not have enough moisture to meet the microbial needs for this process. Bioreactor landfills add liquid and sometimes oxygen to speed up anaerobic waste decomposition by turning it into aerobic decomposition.
Bioreactor landfills convert waste to other useful purposes faster than standard practices—in a matter of years instead of decades. As waste breaks down, it decomposes and is converted into gas which could be used to produce power while decreasing greenhouse gases. The process results in a 15 to 20 percent recovery of landfill space, could provide an alternative to land application of some liquid wastes, and reduces costs for garbage disposal.
The legislation stipulates additional environmental controls for bioreactor landfills and limits such operations to facilities with sufficient design to accommodate bioreactor operations and gas recovery systems.
HB 599 allows the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality to review, approve, and issue research, development and demonstration permits for design, construction and operation of bioreactor landfill operations.
There are currently 70 bioreactor landfills in operation in the country. Bioreactor landfills work by breaking down waste and converting it to other useful purposes over the course of years instead of decades, reducing the need to site new landfills as frequently. They also produce electricity by expanded production of methane gas.
The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), characterizes a bioreactor landfill as that in which "liquid and gas conditions are actively managed in order to accelerate or enhance biostabilization of the waste... significantly increasing the extent of organic waste decomposition, conversion rates, and process effectiveness over what would otherwise occur with the landfill.”
In basic terms, it takes the addition of liquid and air to increase decomposition. Regular landfill waste often does not have enough moisture to meet the microbial needs for this process. Bioreactor landfills add liquid and sometimes oxygen to speed up anaerobic waste decomposition by turning it into aerobic decomposition.
Bioreactor landfills convert waste to other useful purposes faster than standard practices—in a matter of years instead of decades. As waste breaks down, it decomposes and is converted into gas which could be used to produce power while decreasing greenhouse gases. The process results in a 15 to 20 percent recovery of landfill space, could provide an alternative to land application of some liquid wastes, and reduces costs for garbage disposal.
The legislation stipulates additional environmental controls for bioreactor landfills and limits such operations to facilities with sufficient design to accommodate bioreactor operations and gas recovery systems.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Fund established for working lands projects
A bill presented by the Working Lands Coalition to establish a fund in the state treasury generated more discussion than expected in the Senate Resources and Environment Committee Wednesday.
Senate Bill 1343 would establish a fund to make grants to landowners as incentive to engage in natural resources stewardship projects, helping to retain farms, forests and grazing lands as working lands.
Senators questioned why the language of the bill was not more specific to easements, whether it duplicated work being done by existing agencies and programs, and if establishing a mechanism but no money for such a fund would serve as an invitation later to return to the state for money.
“Are we going to hear from you in a couple years asking for money with this empty bucket of conscience sitting in front of us?” Senator Pearce asked.
Chairman Schroeder did not agree that the committee was setting itself up for a future funding request.
“The question comes down to should we keep the group together and the structure to put together a mechanism of funding working lands projects. This doesn’t tie the state into funding at all,” he said.
Ultimately, the committee voted send the bill on to the Senate with a do pass recommendation.
Senate Bill 1343 would establish a fund to make grants to landowners as incentive to engage in natural resources stewardship projects, helping to retain farms, forests and grazing lands as working lands.
Senators questioned why the language of the bill was not more specific to easements, whether it duplicated work being done by existing agencies and programs, and if establishing a mechanism but no money for such a fund would serve as an invitation later to return to the state for money.
“Are we going to hear from you in a couple years asking for money with this empty bucket of conscience sitting in front of us?” Senator Pearce asked.
Chairman Schroeder did not agree that the committee was setting itself up for a future funding request.
“The question comes down to should we keep the group together and the structure to put together a mechanism of funding working lands projects. This doesn’t tie the state into funding at all,” he said.
Ultimately, the committee voted send the bill on to the Senate with a do pass recommendation.
Timber scaling assessments to be split between buyer and seller
On Wednesday, the Senate Resources and Environment Committee approved a bill to provide a funding source for a tiny state agency responsible for making qualified assessments of timber volume. The bill would divide the cost of such assessments between timber owners and timber purchasers. Currently, only the purchaser pays the fee. The bill is supported by a number of timber industry organizations, with supportive testimony offered by the Intermountain Forestry Association and the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation.
Hunters speak out against motorized vehicle rule
The Senate Resources and Environment committee this week heard testimony regarding off-road motorized vehicle use by hunters. Except for disabled hunters with the appropriate vehicle tags, it is illegal to hunt from a motorized vehicle, including ATVs.* Idaho Departments of Fish and Game, Parks and Recreation and Transportation testified to specific points of the IDFG rule, and the US Forest Service and the BLM presented as well (* unfortunately, sometimes in our hurry to get information published, we make misstatements like this one, please see comments below).
Hunters says that IDFG should not be able to apply this rule where the Land management agency or owner say otherwise. They questions whether hunting from a vehicle had any appreciable difference in game populations, and how there is any difference between hunting from and ATV or horseback.
“It’s time to stop restricting people from using their public lands in a reasonable manner,” said one Soda Springs resident offered his testimony in opposition to the rule.
Others testifying against the rule noted that senior citizens needed the additional access to hunting areas provided by ATVs, and remarked on the disparity between registration fees paid by ATV users versus hikers and those traveling on horseback.
“We are paying fees and taxes for these motorized vehicles, the horsemen and the hikers pay nothing. I don’t think that’s fair at all.”
Hunters says that IDFG should not be able to apply this rule where the Land management agency or owner say otherwise. They questions whether hunting from a vehicle had any appreciable difference in game populations, and how there is any difference between hunting from and ATV or horseback.
“It’s time to stop restricting people from using their public lands in a reasonable manner,” said one Soda Springs resident offered his testimony in opposition to the rule.
Others testifying against the rule noted that senior citizens needed the additional access to hunting areas provided by ATVs, and remarked on the disparity between registration fees paid by ATV users versus hikers and those traveling on horseback.
“We are paying fees and taxes for these motorized vehicles, the horsemen and the hikers pay nothing. I don’t think that’s fair at all.”
Friday, February 26, 2010
Water Users present bill to clarify what constitutes “floodways” versus drainages or ditches and “development” versus maintenance
Norm Semanko with the Idaho Water Users Association presented a bill to the House Resources and Conservation Committee clarifying what constitutes a floodway versus a drainage or a ditch and “development” in a floodway versus maintenance. “Lately, we’ve had local entities trying to require a permit to make maintenance improvements – what constitutes ‘regulatory creep’ by agencies,” he said, presenting a letter from the city of Meridian to a Nampa and Meridian irrigation districts saying that their performing regular maintenance on a Ten-Mile Creek required a permit. The bill was sent to the House for consideration.
Emissions testing legislation challenged in committee
Representative Steve Kren proposed a bill this week to the House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee that would have amended the legislative rule on emissions passed two years ago, saying that Canyon County commissioners weren’t given ample time to propose alternatives to a mandatory emissions testing program.
Rep. Kren’s bill would have raised the ceiling for ambient pollution levels in relation to the national standards from 85% to 90%.
Rep. Cronin noted that Canyon County had at least 120 days to put together an alternative plan. What they come up with was a proposed voluntary system, wherein those tested could enter their names in a lottery to win $5,000.
“I’m wondering, all of these other good ideas that we keep hearing about, why were they not brought forth with this suggestion?” Rep Cronin said. Rep. Kren replied that he thought that the commissioners thought their hands were tied by the words “equivalent to that of a vehicle emission testing program.”
Rep. Kren’s bill would have raised the ceiling for ambient pollution levels in relation to the national standards from 85% to 90%.
Rep. Cronin noted that Canyon County had at least 120 days to put together an alternative plan. What they come up with was a proposed voluntary system, wherein those tested could enter their names in a lottery to win $5,000.
“I’m wondering, all of these other good ideas that we keep hearing about, why were they not brought forth with this suggestion?” Rep Cronin said. Rep. Kren replied that he thought that the commissioners thought their hands were tied by the words “equivalent to that of a vehicle emission testing program.”
House bill would raise invasive species sticker price
The House Resources and Conservation Committee this week approved a bill which would raise the price of boat invasive species stickers to $7 from $5 despite testimony from floaters and paddlers who feel they pay a disproportionate share of the fee.
Howard Miller testified as a private citizen that the cost to register his five kayaks is unfair compared to the owner of a much more expensive ski boat, who must only pay for one sticker.
Paddlers also question whether quagga or zebra mussels can attach themselves to kayaks and canoes. Representative Andreason, whose informal approach to invasive species sticker distribution last year included passing out stickers from a bag he carried around the state in his car, presented a portion of rope clustered with mussel shells that had been submersed in Lake Mead for a period of weeks. He noted that as little as a thimble-full of infected water can be a vector of transportation to a brand new colony of mussels.
Representatives of the hydroelectric industry and the Department of Agriculture noted that the threat presented by invasive species warranted the speed with which last year’s legislation was passed and the informality of the original sticker distribution system.
Lloyd Knight of the Department of Agriculture noted that 78% of the funds received were spent on running 17 inspection and decontamination stations around the state. The rest were spent on education, capital outlay and monitoring. This year, the department plans on 16 such stations and upgrades to their monitoring programs and outreach.
The price increase allowed by this bill, Knight says, will allow vendors to recover the cost of distributing the stickers. Idaho is collaborating with vendors and hiring contractors to implement the system, rather than incurring the cost of additional state employees.
Rep. Hagedorn presented a substitute motion, to hold the bill in committee, which failed.
“I’m very uncomfortable that we don’t have a good business plan for something that could have a tremendous impact on our waterways and all the industries that are dependent upon our waterways,” he said, noting that the current proposed legislation offers a band-aid to the problems that have arisen, and that without a solid business plan, the committee was likely to see another bill next year.
Howard Miller testified as a private citizen that the cost to register his five kayaks is unfair compared to the owner of a much more expensive ski boat, who must only pay for one sticker.
Paddlers also question whether quagga or zebra mussels can attach themselves to kayaks and canoes. Representative Andreason, whose informal approach to invasive species sticker distribution last year included passing out stickers from a bag he carried around the state in his car, presented a portion of rope clustered with mussel shells that had been submersed in Lake Mead for a period of weeks. He noted that as little as a thimble-full of infected water can be a vector of transportation to a brand new colony of mussels.
Representatives of the hydroelectric industry and the Department of Agriculture noted that the threat presented by invasive species warranted the speed with which last year’s legislation was passed and the informality of the original sticker distribution system.
Lloyd Knight of the Department of Agriculture noted that 78% of the funds received were spent on running 17 inspection and decontamination stations around the state. The rest were spent on education, capital outlay and monitoring. This year, the department plans on 16 such stations and upgrades to their monitoring programs and outreach.
The price increase allowed by this bill, Knight says, will allow vendors to recover the cost of distributing the stickers. Idaho is collaborating with vendors and hiring contractors to implement the system, rather than incurring the cost of additional state employees.
Rep. Hagedorn presented a substitute motion, to hold the bill in committee, which failed.
“I’m very uncomfortable that we don’t have a good business plan for something that could have a tremendous impact on our waterways and all the industries that are dependent upon our waterways,” he said, noting that the current proposed legislation offers a band-aid to the problems that have arisen, and that without a solid business plan, the committee was likely to see another bill next year.
Bill would keep hunters’ names confidential
The House Resources and Conservation Committee approved a bill sponsored by Representative Judy Boyle that would keep hunter licensing and tag information confidential unless otherwise specified.
Rep. Boyle says that Idaho legal wolf hunters have received threatening emails this season . Rep. Hagerdorn noted he has had similar experiences after he engaged in a wolf hunt and had a story printed about him in a national paper.
Representatives of the Idaho Press Club and Idaho Allied Dailies testified that such records must remain public to allow reporters to verify when political candidates claim to be hunters and fisherman. In addition, outdoor reporters use such records to verify that their story subjects hold the appropriate licenses and tags.
Opponents to the bill also note that hunters and fishermen often refer to public records to report on others who are engaging in unlawful hunting. They prefer instead that the issue of harassment be dealt with from the standpoint of penalties for the person or persons engaged in harassment.
Rep. Boyle says that Idaho legal wolf hunters have received threatening emails this season . Rep. Hagerdorn noted he has had similar experiences after he engaged in a wolf hunt and had a story printed about him in a national paper.
Representatives of the Idaho Press Club and Idaho Allied Dailies testified that such records must remain public to allow reporters to verify when political candidates claim to be hunters and fisherman. In addition, outdoor reporters use such records to verify that their story subjects hold the appropriate licenses and tags.
Opponents to the bill also note that hunters and fishermen often refer to public records to report on others who are engaging in unlawful hunting. They prefer instead that the issue of harassment be dealt with from the standpoint of penalties for the person or persons engaged in harassment.
Senator proposes clarification in permitting requirements for big game pelts, collaboration on wolf management
The Senate Resources and Environment committee on Monday considered several bills presented by Senator Gary Schroeder, including clarifications of big game reporting rules.
Changes to Idaho Fish and Game rules in the 1990s inadvertently failed to clarify IDFG’s authority to require permits to buy and sell black bear and cougar pelts. Schroeder, a north Idaho taxidermist, says that this omission could result in negative media coverage for those who engage in a regulated trade in lawfully taken wildlife.
“The last thing taxidermists want is for people coming into the state buying and selling things without regulation, create bad situations, get in the paper and give the industry a black eye.” Senator Schroeder said about the bill, which the committee approved.
Senator Schroeder also presented a resolution designed to encourage broader fact-finding and idea sharing regarding wolf management. The resolution, Rep. Schroeder says, encourages the Governor’s office, IDFG and the Office of Species Conservation to reach out and take the lead in originating dialogue in a more expansive area.
“The states that have wolves from the Great Lakes to the West need to be comparing notes and making sure they have a coordinated strategy to manage (wolves),” he said.
Both bills were sent on for consideration by the Senate.
Changes to Idaho Fish and Game rules in the 1990s inadvertently failed to clarify IDFG’s authority to require permits to buy and sell black bear and cougar pelts. Schroeder, a north Idaho taxidermist, says that this omission could result in negative media coverage for those who engage in a regulated trade in lawfully taken wildlife.
“The last thing taxidermists want is for people coming into the state buying and selling things without regulation, create bad situations, get in the paper and give the industry a black eye.” Senator Schroeder said about the bill, which the committee approved.
Senator Schroeder also presented a resolution designed to encourage broader fact-finding and idea sharing regarding wolf management. The resolution, Rep. Schroeder says, encourages the Governor’s office, IDFG and the Office of Species Conservation to reach out and take the lead in originating dialogue in a more expansive area.
“The states that have wolves from the Great Lakes to the West need to be comparing notes and making sure they have a coordinated strategy to manage (wolves),” he said.
Both bills were sent on for consideration by the Senate.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Dairies Ask for Help in Restricting County Jurisdiction
Milk Producers of Idaho are asking legislators for their help in restricting county jurisdiction over large dairies, arguing that it is unnecessary to constrict Idaho Dairies to tighter air and water quality standards than are allowed under Idaho law. Click to read the full story from AP Reporter John Miller.
"Broad" Language Threatens Invasive Species Bill
Early in the week, the Senate Agricultural Affairs Committee voted down an RS that they said contained language that would allow too much latitude to authorities trying to curb the influx of invasive species.
Lloyd Knight of the Department of Agriculture fielded questions about proposed legislative changes that he said were necessary to allow law enforcement agencies the ability to be proactive in addressing species that may come to their attention in the future.
But Senator Schroeder said the terminology in the legislation was too broad, specifically the term “conveyance” which could include “a container” for example might allow officials to search something as innocuous as cooler in the back of a pick-up, and give them the authority to fine or jail those who fail to pull over at checkpoints.
“How does the public know what you mean unless you mean unless you communicate with them?” Senator Schroeder asked.
Knight was back on Thursday having removed the word “container” from the legislation, which was sent to print.
Lloyd Knight of the Department of Agriculture fielded questions about proposed legislative changes that he said were necessary to allow law enforcement agencies the ability to be proactive in addressing species that may come to their attention in the future.
But Senator Schroeder said the terminology in the legislation was too broad, specifically the term “conveyance” which could include “a container” for example might allow officials to search something as innocuous as cooler in the back of a pick-up, and give them the authority to fine or jail those who fail to pull over at checkpoints.
“How does the public know what you mean unless you mean unless you communicate with them?” Senator Schroeder asked.
Knight was back on Thursday having removed the word “container” from the legislation, which was sent to print.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Department of Lands proposes new rules
In June, 2007, the State Land Board directed the Department of Lands (IDL) to study problems with current lease rules and involve the stakeholders in the process of negotiated rulemaking. The Land Board wanted to avoid continued lawsuits and reduce costs to IDL.
On Wednesday, IDL representatives presented rules on new procedures to award leases on state endowment lands and to govern conflict auctions. About 45 people attended the joint presentation to the Senate Resources & Environment Committee and the House Resources and Conservation Committee in the spacious Senate auditorium.
IDL’s proposed changes include:
- Expanding the scope of the rules to include grazing, farming, conservation, communications and non-commercial recreation
- Requiring applicants in conflict auctions to agree to lease provisions, including management plans for the land. If agreement on provisions cannot be reached, the application will be denied.
- Allocating credit for improvements to the land based on the value of the improvements, including appreciation- over the length of the lease.
IDL representatives fielded a number of questions from the joint committee:
If a lease was put up for bid because of delinquent payments, would a person who was behind on something like child care payments, and owed the state, be ineligible to bid on a lease? Current processes wouldn’t pick up on this delinquency, but only on delinquencies on money due to the Department of Lands.
How do you monitor such disparate entities who could have leases under this expanded scope? Changes in the rule would require a meeting with the department to discuss proposed uses of the lands. Financial considerations to the proposed use and monitoring would be taken into account as well as potential conflicts between multiple leases.
How often would you monitor how agreed upon criteria is being met? The department manages 2.5 million acres of endowment lands, they would weigh, on a case by case basis, whether and how they would monitor this based upon the use and the subsequent costs to monitor. In some cases, they would require self monitoring and reporting back to the department.
Some of these leases have multiple purposes, some have timber and also grazing. How do you determine that one use is not in conflict with the other? What’s the criteria you’re going to use to evaluate that? IDL would determine what resource values or revenues would be at risk when reviewing the application. Area staff, based upon its knowledge of those lands, would perform this risk assessment based upon site specific conditions. For example, a lease would have to mitigate for fire prevention, if necessary, in the area.
If that’s the case, are you prepared to manage to that level? Are you going to go back every year, or once every 10 years? Depending upon the type of mitigation, it would be necessary to provide more oversight and cost recovery for additional inspections or administrative costs incurred by certain uses.
What is meant by the “valuation of improvements” and how is that different from current language? The term replaces the definition of “appraisal” clarifying that the department in conducting reviews is not serving as qualified appraisers. Regarding “permanent improvements” and how they’re handled in the lease contract itself, the language is not specifically related to the valuation process but the disposition of improvements if the lease is terminated.
Is this a change from the way it was handled before in considering whether to approve or disapprove the lease? Improvement credit is allowed in certain cases either through land sale or through conflict auction. The value of such improvements would be determined in the contract if, in the future, the holder were to lose the lease.
What about the time frame for lease to go through mitigation measures? Those appeals that go to the State Land Board have no time frames associated with them but would be handled on a case-by-case basis.
What would be an example of a cause to give notice of 180 days to terminate a contract? What if the department were approached for a “higher and better” use that would generate more revenue on the existing endowed land? Change of land-use would be a cause to terminate an existing lease.
Is there any compensation for the lease for improvements? Compensation is covered in the improvement section.
If you are leasing land to graze cattle at a cost of $5 per unit, can you change that price during the time the lease is in effect? Yes, those figures are recalculated and adjusted every year.
Public testimony included support for the rules with some suggestions for changes by the Idaho Cattle Association:
· Grazing Management Plans are a useful tool, but will have little or no effect on the department’s ability to manage the lease
· Idaho Department of Lands should not shift the cost of noxious weeds on the backs of the grazers.
· The IDL and the leasees need to continue to work together to manage for the long term needs of the endowment lands.
Both committees voted to accept the rules but rejected certain sections.
On Wednesday, IDL representatives presented rules on new procedures to award leases on state endowment lands and to govern conflict auctions. About 45 people attended the joint presentation to the Senate Resources & Environment Committee and the House Resources and Conservation Committee in the spacious Senate auditorium.
IDL’s proposed changes include:
- Expanding the scope of the rules to include grazing, farming, conservation, communications and non-commercial recreation
- Requiring applicants in conflict auctions to agree to lease provisions, including management plans for the land. If agreement on provisions cannot be reached, the application will be denied.
- Allocating credit for improvements to the land based on the value of the improvements, including appreciation- over the length of the lease.
IDL representatives fielded a number of questions from the joint committee:
If a lease was put up for bid because of delinquent payments, would a person who was behind on something like child care payments, and owed the state, be ineligible to bid on a lease? Current processes wouldn’t pick up on this delinquency, but only on delinquencies on money due to the Department of Lands.
How do you monitor such disparate entities who could have leases under this expanded scope? Changes in the rule would require a meeting with the department to discuss proposed uses of the lands. Financial considerations to the proposed use and monitoring would be taken into account as well as potential conflicts between multiple leases.
How often would you monitor how agreed upon criteria is being met? The department manages 2.5 million acres of endowment lands, they would weigh, on a case by case basis, whether and how they would monitor this based upon the use and the subsequent costs to monitor. In some cases, they would require self monitoring and reporting back to the department.
Some of these leases have multiple purposes, some have timber and also grazing. How do you determine that one use is not in conflict with the other? What’s the criteria you’re going to use to evaluate that? IDL would determine what resource values or revenues would be at risk when reviewing the application. Area staff, based upon its knowledge of those lands, would perform this risk assessment based upon site specific conditions. For example, a lease would have to mitigate for fire prevention, if necessary, in the area.
If that’s the case, are you prepared to manage to that level? Are you going to go back every year, or once every 10 years? Depending upon the type of mitigation, it would be necessary to provide more oversight and cost recovery for additional inspections or administrative costs incurred by certain uses.
What is meant by the “valuation of improvements” and how is that different from current language? The term replaces the definition of “appraisal” clarifying that the department in conducting reviews is not serving as qualified appraisers. Regarding “permanent improvements” and how they’re handled in the lease contract itself, the language is not specifically related to the valuation process but the disposition of improvements if the lease is terminated.
Is this a change from the way it was handled before in considering whether to approve or disapprove the lease? Improvement credit is allowed in certain cases either through land sale or through conflict auction. The value of such improvements would be determined in the contract if, in the future, the holder were to lose the lease.
What about the time frame for lease to go through mitigation measures? Those appeals that go to the State Land Board have no time frames associated with them but would be handled on a case-by-case basis.
What would be an example of a cause to give notice of 180 days to terminate a contract? What if the department were approached for a “higher and better” use that would generate more revenue on the existing endowed land? Change of land-use would be a cause to terminate an existing lease.
Is there any compensation for the lease for improvements? Compensation is covered in the improvement section.
If you are leasing land to graze cattle at a cost of $5 per unit, can you change that price during the time the lease is in effect? Yes, those figures are recalculated and adjusted every year.
Public testimony included support for the rules with some suggestions for changes by the Idaho Cattle Association:
· Grazing Management Plans are a useful tool, but will have little or no effect on the department’s ability to manage the lease
· Idaho Department of Lands should not shift the cost of noxious weeds on the backs of the grazers.
· The IDL and the leasees need to continue to work together to manage for the long term needs of the endowment lands.
Both committees voted to accept the rules but rejected certain sections.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Whose rule is it?
On Thursday the House Energy Environment and Technology Committee took care of some housekeeping, complements of the Department of Environmental Quality. The DEQ presented a number of updates to Idaho Code that were overlooked when the department was split off from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare in 2000, including a change to Idaho Code that requires environmental protection rules to go to the H&W for approval instead of the DEQ. Currently, the departments are compensating for this by allowing the DEQ to review them for consistency with Idaho Rules before review by the legislature.
Debate continues on car emissions, this time over rules
On Tuesday, the Senate Health & Welfare Committee approved rules on minimum standards for auto emissions in the state of Idaho. The original legislation was based on recommendations made by the Treasure Valley Air Quality Council in early 2007. One of the recommendations was to expand the Ada County emissions testing program to include Canyon County which has always been a hot-button issue and based on the testimony during the hearing on the proposed new rules remains so.
Always a contentious issue, the legislation was revised several times before finally being passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Otter on April 1, 2008.
Idaho Department of Environment Quality (IDEQ) conducted a negotiated rulemaking and almost two years after the bill became law, those rules were presented to the Senate committee.
After the presentation of the rule by Martin Bauer from IDEQ and a few questions by legislators, those attending who wished to do so were given the opportunity to testimony for or against the rules.
Essentially the same cast of characters that had supported and opposed the bill expressed opposition or support of the proposed rules. Chairman Lodge reminded those opposing the bill that since the legislation had already been debated and passed and signed by the governor, testimony should be limited to commenting on the rule rather than debating the legislation over again.
Those opposing the bill claim that there is no need for Canyon County to have to comply with a testing program, that the facts do not support IDEQ’s contention that the Treasure Valley is close to becoming a non-attainment area which would impact economic expansion and limit road building.
Supporters maintain that the Treasurer Valley is very close to being declared a non-attainment area because of ozone levels now. Having this program is place will help to lower ozone levels and also buy us time if EPA decides to require lower limits on ozone. With this program in place, we might be able to convince EPA not to take over regulation of air quality in the Treasure Valley. These rules are much less onerous that whatever EPA would be likely to propose.
There were enough aye votes by committee members to counter some no votes by Canyon County legislators and the rules were approved.
Always a contentious issue, the legislation was revised several times before finally being passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Otter on April 1, 2008.
Idaho Department of Environment Quality (IDEQ) conducted a negotiated rulemaking and almost two years after the bill became law, those rules were presented to the Senate committee.
After the presentation of the rule by Martin Bauer from IDEQ and a few questions by legislators, those attending who wished to do so were given the opportunity to testimony for or against the rules.
Essentially the same cast of characters that had supported and opposed the bill expressed opposition or support of the proposed rules. Chairman Lodge reminded those opposing the bill that since the legislation had already been debated and passed and signed by the governor, testimony should be limited to commenting on the rule rather than debating the legislation over again.
Those opposing the bill claim that there is no need for Canyon County to have to comply with a testing program, that the facts do not support IDEQ’s contention that the Treasure Valley is close to becoming a non-attainment area which would impact economic expansion and limit road building.
Supporters maintain that the Treasurer Valley is very close to being declared a non-attainment area because of ozone levels now. Having this program is place will help to lower ozone levels and also buy us time if EPA decides to require lower limits on ozone. With this program in place, we might be able to convince EPA not to take over regulation of air quality in the Treasure Valley. These rules are much less onerous that whatever EPA would be likely to propose.
There were enough aye votes by committee members to counter some no votes by Canyon County legislators and the rules were approved.
IJOBS package includes bill focused on expediting renewable energy projects
Idaho House and Senate Democrats introduced a package of bills Wednesday that its sponsors say are aimed at stimulating Idaho business and generating job growth. The Grow Green Idaho Jobs Act would expedite the permitting process for renewable energy projects. Another bill would establish a Jobs Council within the Governor’s Office charged with providing recommendations to increase jobs in Idaho. A third senate bill would direct the Departments of Commerce and Labor to provide market data to Idaho small businesses to help them compete in the market place and create jobs. All three senate bills were introduced and printed last week, and are waiting for a hearing. The remaining bills, set to be introduced in House Committees this week, focus on stimulating Idaho business growth and expansion, through small business incubators, tax credits on venture capital investments in Idaho business, and tax credits for businesses that create and fill higher paying jobs with benefits.
Sponsors have christened this the Idaho Jobs and Opportunity Blueprint (IJOBs), that they say borrows from programs that have been successful in other states.
Sponsors have christened this the Idaho Jobs and Opportunity Blueprint (IJOBs), that they say borrows from programs that have been successful in other states.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Legislation Addresses Regulations on the Timber Industry
The House Resources and Conservation Committee focused its attention this week on the timber industry, moving several pieces of draft legislation forward to print, including a revision to the Timber Supply Stabilization Act.
Idaho was the first state to mandate in-state processing for logs harvested from state forests, a decision that was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1984, in that it interfered with interstate commerce. In 1989 this act reestablished Idaho’s in-state processing requirements for almost all state timber, offering almost all state timber each year to qualified bidders (whom it defined as Idaho processors almost exclusively). This legislation would repeal the qualified bidder status.
But, Representative Eskridge asked, what of Idaho mills that have been shut down due to lack of timber supply? Do we really have the excess lumber to open the bidding process to processors outside of Idaho? And, asked Representative Barrett, what does the timber industry think of this legislation?
Ultimately, the bill was sent to print, which will give other interested parties an opportunity to comment on these issues.
Under the heading of “opportunity for increased revenue” came an RS concerning fees for permits for navigational encroachments (such as single and multi-family docs). Current Idaho code caps fees at $250, while the estimated cost to process such permits is more. The permit program takes in more than $600,000 per year, at a net loss of more than $160,000 per year. The bill, which would double current fee, was sent to print.
Idaho was the first state to mandate in-state processing for logs harvested from state forests, a decision that was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1984, in that it interfered with interstate commerce. In 1989 this act reestablished Idaho’s in-state processing requirements for almost all state timber, offering almost all state timber each year to qualified bidders (whom it defined as Idaho processors almost exclusively). This legislation would repeal the qualified bidder status.
But, Representative Eskridge asked, what of Idaho mills that have been shut down due to lack of timber supply? Do we really have the excess lumber to open the bidding process to processors outside of Idaho? And, asked Representative Barrett, what does the timber industry think of this legislation?
Ultimately, the bill was sent to print, which will give other interested parties an opportunity to comment on these issues.
Under the heading of “opportunity for increased revenue” came an RS concerning fees for permits for navigational encroachments (such as single and multi-family docs). Current Idaho code caps fees at $250, while the estimated cost to process such permits is more. The permit program takes in more than $600,000 per year, at a net loss of more than $160,000 per year. The bill, which would double current fee, was sent to print.
Are the Feds Living Up to their Responsibilities Under ESA?
On Wednesday, committee members heard a report on endangered species in Idaho by a panel headed up by Nate Fisher, Idaho Office of Species Conservation. Fisher voiced the Governor’s frustration that while Idaho citizens have been willing to roll up their sleeves and work to save species, the Federal government has failed to live up to the provisions of the Endangered Species Act and to its commitments to Idaho citizens. We need to be concerned about what is in the best interests of Idaho.
Slick spot peppergrass is found in two counties in Idaho. Fisher outlined the history of the process starting in 2003 with the use of Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCA) which were meant to protect the plant so that listing would not be needed. The use of CCAs was so successful that USFWS withdrew the proposal to list slick spot peppergrass in 2004 which lead to additional lawsuits. The Obama administration has repudiated the agreements and proposed listing-invalidating the collaboration which led to CCAs. That’s why the governor has proposed filing a lawsuit to protect a state’s right to develop CCAs. If the feds can unilaterally say no after having agreed, this is a disincentive to citizens working with the feds to protect candidate species.
Fisher says the same scenario exists with sage grouse. Idaho has 13 local working groups involved in sage grouse restoration. In 2005, a sage grouse listing was not warranted. In 2010, a judge has remanded the issue back to the USFWS which could continue its stance that a listing is not warranted, determine that sage grouse not be listed because of its low priority, list it in its full range across 11 western states or list it in certain parts of the range. Whatever decision is made, there will be more lawsuits and less incentive to work with the Federal government on solutions that benefit the species.
Critical habitat for bull trout is again an issue with a 2010 proposal to declare 22,000 miles of streams and 533,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs as critical habitat after a decision to declare a smaller amount of critical habitat was remanded to the agency for another review and public input process. Almost half the stream miles and lake and reservoir acres are in Idaho alone.
The process to delist wolves started in 2005 and has been interrupted several times by lawsuits. In 2009, the wolf was delisted in Idaho and Montana. Hunting seasons were set despite a pending lawsuit to list the wolves as endangered. The oral arguments will take place in February, 2010. Idaho’s hunting season is still open in some areas until March 31.
Clive Strong of the Attorney General’s office also reported on the status of salmon litigation which has been on for over a decade. The Obama administration has made some changes to the 2008 biological opinion—adding an adaptive management contingent and triggers that would require a study of dam breaching. Congress would, however, still have to vote to breach any of the four Lower Snake River dams because they were authorized by Congress in the first place. A decision on the lawsuit in Judge Redden’s court could come this spring or summer.
Is State Funding for CAMP in Jeopardy?
Both Senate and House committees dealing with natural resources committees met this week.
At the Senate Resources and Environment committee meeting, Director Hal Anderson of the Idaho Department of Water Resources and his board were on hand to follow up on an interim committee request to review how budget cutbacks were going to affect the department – specifically progress on the Eastern Snake River Plain Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan or CAMP.
Anderson noted that the department is leaving some staff positions vacant and laying off other staff, leaving them with a skeleton crew, and a longer wait for processing water rights requests. Also of concern is financing for irrigation system improvements. Stimulus funds can provide a 50% funding, but the credit market is so tight right now, so applicants are finding that financing the remainder is difficult.
Senator Coiner noted his concern with the way department procedures are written and the resulting potential injury to junior water rights holders. He noted that throughout the tenure of multiple department directors he has asked for a review of these procedures, specifically with regard to the water bank: a system which works well, except in the case of private leases, says Senator Coiner.
“I think that the person who leases the water bears the brunt of the lack of water (as opposed to the entity that holds the water right) until the water bank fills.” He said.
Senator Bracket raised the specter of State funding for the CAMP. How important, in the face of the current budget crisis, is it that the State follows through on its $1 million funding for CAMP this year?
Anderson noted that other funding mechanisms are being explored, but that “the discussions we’ve had with the water users and the State’s commitment to this funding go hand-in-hand …. Without state funding these discussions would fall apart.”
Anderson added further that the CAMP funding provides a necessary bridge to carry the project forward to a time when fees and other funding sources can be realized.
Chairman Schroeder brought up the subject of incidental recharge of the aquifer. The IDWR board wants to encourage the healthy consumption of water that includes incidental recharge. There is the question, however, of incentivizing incidental recharge. Should someone who is already allowing for incidental recharge be compensated, or just those who must transition to a system of surface water?
Members of the board acknowledged they don’t have a solution to this problem, but are confident one will be presented.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Governor Otter's State of the State Address 2010
In his State of the State Address today, Governor Butch Otter gave nods to innovation, dug his heels in about federal intervention and, of course, gave a preview of what look to be dire budget cuts for the year to come.
To begin with, Governor Otter outlined what he calls the "basic tenants of the role of government" …
- “Number one, we must not raise taxes. It is not our place to impose an additional economic burden on the people of Idaho who already are struggling, or to put a damper our economic recovery.
- “Number two, we must continue to maintain some level of cash reserve against the prospect of our economic recovery taking longer and being less robust than we hope. . . Prudence demands that we act with caution.
- “Number three, we must do whatever we can to protect the educational opportunities and safeguard the potential of the next generation of Idahoans – our children and grandchildren. And as our recovery advances, one of our first priorities for new dollars should be our public schools and higher education.
- “Number four, we must do whatever we can to protect the health, safety and well‐being of our citizens – especially the neediest and most vulnerable among us.
- “And number five, we must do whatever we can to avoid any duplication of effort or any waste of the taxpayers’ hard‐earned dollars.”
* * *
Transportation infrastructure was the Governor's bully pulpit last year, and from his remarks today, it looks to continue to be on the legislative docket for 2010 …
“Transportation remains a very important priority for my administration – as I know it does for you. Our economic well‐being as individuals and as a state will remain in jeopardy without safe and efficient corridors of commerce. That’s why Lieutenant Governor Little is leading my Transportation Task Force – with the help of legislators and private citizens – to carefully study and consider the long‐term needs that still must be addressed once our economy turns around.”
* * *
Legislative pundits, and anyone who's been keeping up with current events, have been predicting dire budget cuts this year. The Governor’s speech contained few specifics:
“... My recommendations are based on zero revenue growth in Fiscal Year 2011. That threshold agreement on a starting point for our budget work was reached over four months of unprecedented discussions with legislative leaders.
"It reflects the relationship between economic recovery and revenue recovery, as well as our
continuing commitment to being frugal stewards of the people’s money.
“As a result, my budget eliminates more than 400 positions throughout State government –
including about 375 that now are vacant – and consolidates some agency operations.
And finally, I’m proposing that for the balance of Fiscal Year 2010 we hold back an additional $40 million from all State agencies and operations – including public schools.
“That is among the toughest recommendations I make today. But the fact is that while other Executive Branch agencies have cut their spending by $499 million as a result of holdbacks over the past two budget years, we have used almost $318 million from reserve accounts and federal stimulus funds during that same period to reduce the impact on public schools. . . Now legislative leadership and I are in agreement that public schools must participate in this new
effort to respond to sharp revenue reductions by paring an additional 1.6 percent from our spending for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2010. Our proposal would look to local school districts for their specific ideas on how to best achieve the savings, including their discretionary use of local reserve accounts and – in extreme cases – advances future State funding.
“To that end, I am recommending that we continue to carefully use our “rainy day” funds to
address some of our most immediate and pressing needs. Specifically, I’m recommending that we use almost $241 million from our reserve accounts – including the non‐endowed portion of the Millennium Fund – to address projected revenue shortfalls in the balance of Fiscal Year 2010 and in Fiscal Year 2011. That includes the $49 million that I asked you in late September to draw from the Public Education Stabilization Fund to cover the public schools portion of the tiered holdback I ordered at that time.”
Members of the press, including bloggers Betsy Russell from the Spokesman Review and Nathanial Hoffman of the Boise Weekly reported on a press briefing of the Governor’s full budget, including cuts to Idaho Public Television, the Department of Parks and Recreation and various smaller agencies.
From Russell’s Blog, Eye on Boise from Spokesman.com: “The twenty-five existing jobs at the state Department of Parks & Recreation would be eliminated as the department is abolished and combined with the state Department of Lands; however, Otter’s budget allows for keeping the Parks Department in place if non-general funds can be identified to operate it. His budget also calls for a four-year phase-out of state general funds for Idaho Public Television and six smaller agencies, including the Human Rights Commission, the Hispanic Commission, and the Digital Learning Academy. The agencies wouldn’t be eliminated; instead, they’d operate with other funds.”
* * *
Governor Otter put forth several potential measures to mediate the budget cuts:
“I am proposing that we continue preparing for tomorrow’s work force by:
- Providing funds to handle the tremendous enrollment growth at the College of Western Idaho,
- Fully funding our commitments to cooperative medical education programs,
- Continuing to invest in the ground‐breaking work being done at the Center for Advanced Energy Studies in Idaho Falls,
- And by providing $1 million in Opportunity Scholarships to help our deserving students stay here at home to continue their education.”
And …
“We need our Idaho young people to stay here on the land. . . That’s why I’m proposing that we invest $1 million to continue implementing the Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan that’s showing such great promise in protecting and preserving our precious water resources.
* * *
With regard to protecting Idaho’s natural resources, the Governor gave a nod to ongoing battles with the federal government:
“I also want to congratulate Nate Fisher at the Office of Species Conservation, other State agencies, local units of government and especially the landowners who worked so well together to protect and preserve the southern Idaho desert plant known as slick spot peppergrass.
“Unfortunately, the federal government in its infinite wisdom concluded that local folks weren’t up to that task, so it imposed Endangered Species Act protections.
“Yes, the feds are casting aside the collective judgment of the people born to this land and who care most about it in favor of bureaucratic nonsense and an invitation to endless court battles.”
And ….
“I also am continuing my fight to keep the feds from using Idaho as a dumping ground for its
elemental mercury. We have worked too hard protecting the Snake River Plain Aquifer and building a strong and collaborative relationship with our partners at the Idaho National Laboratory to allow it all to be put at risk by a misguided federal decision.
“I will not allow Idaho to become the nation’s dumping ground for its elemental mercury!
“There is a similar policy‐making sleight‐of‐hand going on with the federal administration’s efforts to foist the cost of a budget‐breaking entitlement program onto our backs. The so‐called health care “reform” bills being promoted by the President’s party in Congress could add as much as half a billion dollars to Medicaid costs in Idaho."
To begin with, Governor Otter outlined what he calls the "basic tenants of the role of government" …
- “Number one, we must not raise taxes. It is not our place to impose an additional economic burden on the people of Idaho who already are struggling, or to put a damper our economic recovery.
- “Number two, we must continue to maintain some level of cash reserve against the prospect of our economic recovery taking longer and being less robust than we hope. . . Prudence demands that we act with caution.
- “Number three, we must do whatever we can to protect the educational opportunities and safeguard the potential of the next generation of Idahoans – our children and grandchildren. And as our recovery advances, one of our first priorities for new dollars should be our public schools and higher education.
- “Number four, we must do whatever we can to protect the health, safety and well‐being of our citizens – especially the neediest and most vulnerable among us.
- “And number five, we must do whatever we can to avoid any duplication of effort or any waste of the taxpayers’ hard‐earned dollars.”
* * *
Transportation infrastructure was the Governor's bully pulpit last year, and from his remarks today, it looks to continue to be on the legislative docket for 2010 …
“Transportation remains a very important priority for my administration – as I know it does for you. Our economic well‐being as individuals and as a state will remain in jeopardy without safe and efficient corridors of commerce. That’s why Lieutenant Governor Little is leading my Transportation Task Force – with the help of legislators and private citizens – to carefully study and consider the long‐term needs that still must be addressed once our economy turns around.”
* * *
Legislative pundits, and anyone who's been keeping up with current events, have been predicting dire budget cuts this year. The Governor’s speech contained few specifics:
“... My recommendations are based on zero revenue growth in Fiscal Year 2011. That threshold agreement on a starting point for our budget work was reached over four months of unprecedented discussions with legislative leaders.
"It reflects the relationship between economic recovery and revenue recovery, as well as our
continuing commitment to being frugal stewards of the people’s money.
“As a result, my budget eliminates more than 400 positions throughout State government –
including about 375 that now are vacant – and consolidates some agency operations.
And finally, I’m proposing that for the balance of Fiscal Year 2010 we hold back an additional $40 million from all State agencies and operations – including public schools.
“That is among the toughest recommendations I make today. But the fact is that while other Executive Branch agencies have cut their spending by $499 million as a result of holdbacks over the past two budget years, we have used almost $318 million from reserve accounts and federal stimulus funds during that same period to reduce the impact on public schools. . . Now legislative leadership and I are in agreement that public schools must participate in this new
effort to respond to sharp revenue reductions by paring an additional 1.6 percent from our spending for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2010. Our proposal would look to local school districts for their specific ideas on how to best achieve the savings, including their discretionary use of local reserve accounts and – in extreme cases – advances future State funding.
“To that end, I am recommending that we continue to carefully use our “rainy day” funds to
address some of our most immediate and pressing needs. Specifically, I’m recommending that we use almost $241 million from our reserve accounts – including the non‐endowed portion of the Millennium Fund – to address projected revenue shortfalls in the balance of Fiscal Year 2010 and in Fiscal Year 2011. That includes the $49 million that I asked you in late September to draw from the Public Education Stabilization Fund to cover the public schools portion of the tiered holdback I ordered at that time.”
Members of the press, including bloggers Betsy Russell from the Spokesman Review and Nathanial Hoffman of the Boise Weekly reported on a press briefing of the Governor’s full budget, including cuts to Idaho Public Television, the Department of Parks and Recreation and various smaller agencies.
From Russell’s Blog, Eye on Boise from Spokesman.com: “The twenty-five existing jobs at the state Department of Parks & Recreation would be eliminated as the department is abolished and combined with the state Department of Lands; however, Otter’s budget allows for keeping the Parks Department in place if non-general funds can be identified to operate it. His budget also calls for a four-year phase-out of state general funds for Idaho Public Television and six smaller agencies, including the Human Rights Commission, the Hispanic Commission, and the Digital Learning Academy. The agencies wouldn’t be eliminated; instead, they’d operate with other funds.”
* * *
Governor Otter put forth several potential measures to mediate the budget cuts:
“I am proposing that we continue preparing for tomorrow’s work force by:
- Providing funds to handle the tremendous enrollment growth at the College of Western Idaho,
- Fully funding our commitments to cooperative medical education programs,
- Continuing to invest in the ground‐breaking work being done at the Center for Advanced Energy Studies in Idaho Falls,
- And by providing $1 million in Opportunity Scholarships to help our deserving students stay here at home to continue their education.”
And …
“We need our Idaho young people to stay here on the land. . . That’s why I’m proposing that we invest $1 million to continue implementing the Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan that’s showing such great promise in protecting and preserving our precious water resources.
* * *
With regard to protecting Idaho’s natural resources, the Governor gave a nod to ongoing battles with the federal government:
“I also want to congratulate Nate Fisher at the Office of Species Conservation, other State agencies, local units of government and especially the landowners who worked so well together to protect and preserve the southern Idaho desert plant known as slick spot peppergrass.
“Unfortunately, the federal government in its infinite wisdom concluded that local folks weren’t up to that task, so it imposed Endangered Species Act protections.
“Yes, the feds are casting aside the collective judgment of the people born to this land and who care most about it in favor of bureaucratic nonsense and an invitation to endless court battles.”
And ….
“I also am continuing my fight to keep the feds from using Idaho as a dumping ground for its
elemental mercury. We have worked too hard protecting the Snake River Plain Aquifer and building a strong and collaborative relationship with our partners at the Idaho National Laboratory to allow it all to be put at risk by a misguided federal decision.
“I will not allow Idaho to become the nation’s dumping ground for its elemental mercury!
“There is a similar policy‐making sleight‐of‐hand going on with the federal administration’s efforts to foist the cost of a budget‐breaking entitlement program onto our backs. The so‐called health care “reform” bills being promoted by the President’s party in Congress could add as much as half a billion dollars to Medicaid costs in Idaho."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)