Tag: laws

States to Have Bigger Enforcement Role?

The Bush Administration wants to shift more of the job of enforcing environmental laws to the states. The Environmental Protection Agency proposes to give states twenty-five million dollars to do the job. However, environmentalists, the General Accounting Office and even the EPA’s own Office of Inspector General find problems with the plan. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has more:

Transcript

The Bush administration wants to shift more of the job of enforcing environmental laws to the states. The Environmental Protection Agency proposes to give states 25-million dollars to do the job. However, Environmentalists, the General Accounting Office and EVEN the EPA’s own Office of Inspector General find problems with the plan. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


Although the EPA is responsible for enforcement of national environmental laws, in most cases it assigns much of that authority to the states. Already 44 state environmental agencies act as the enforcement agency for the EPA. Now in its fiscal year 2002 budget, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Administrator, Christie Todd Whitman, proposes cutting the agency’s staff and giving more money to the states to enforce environmental laws. This move would only shift a little more of that burden to the states.


Some members of Congress have been pushing for shifting many of the federal government’s enforcement duties to the state level, arguing that the people at the state level are more attuned to the effects that strictly enforcing regulatory laws can have on the local economy.


The EPA has found that’s sometimes true. But in considering the economic impact, the state regulators don’t always enforce the law the way the EPA wants it to be done and that can be bad for the environment. Eileen McMahon is with the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General.


“We have –going back to 1996– been doing reviews and evaluations of different areas of enforcement, air enforcement, water enforcement, other enforcement and have found, certainly, cases where the states could be doing a better job.”


In a report released just last month the EPA’s Inspector General found that while some states have great records at enforcing environmental laws. But in many other cases some states have simply looked the other way.


“We found that states’ concerns with regulating small and economically vital businesses and industries had an impact on whether or not they were effectively deterring non-compliance.”


Some environmental groups are not surprised by those findings. Elliot Negin is with the Natural Resources Defense Council. He says he wouldn’t expect much good to come from letting states take more responsibility for enforcing environmental laws.


“Well, it’s gonna open a whole can of worms. The states, many states have pretty bad track records when it comes to upholding environmental laws. And, the state politicians are, unfortunately, sometimes too close to the polluters through campaign contributions and what not.”


Despite those concerns, some members of Congress feel the US EPA has been too aggressive in its application of environmental laws, and that shifting more of the enforcement authority to the states would bring a certain measure of common sense to the process.


As, the two sides argue about the merits of enforcing environmental laws at the federal level or the state level. One government office says no decision should be made at all just yet. The General Accounting office says the states and the EPA should take stock of how things are working now.


The GAO just released a report that finds cutting staff at the federal level and shifting resources to the state level — in other words, just what EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whittman is proposing— is premature. John Stephenson is the Director of Natural Resources and Environment for the GAO. He says the EPA has no idea how many people it takes to properly enforce the law because its workforce plan is more than a decade old.


“And, so, that’s basic information you would need to determine, number one, how many enforcement personnel that the states might need and number two how many personnel EPA headquarters might need to oversee the states.”


The GAO’s Stephenson says until some kind of workforce assessment is done. There’s little point in debating whether the EPA or the states are better suited to enforce environmental laws.


“This shift in authority, as you know, is an ongoing debate in the Congress and we feel like that there needs to be this basic workforce analysis done before either side is in a position to support their relative positions.”


The EPA agreed with the General Accounting Office’s findings. But it’s unclear whether there’s enough time to assess the agencies and states’ workforce needs before Congress approves the budget that could shift some of the enforcement authority to the states.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

STATES TO HAVE BIGGER ENFORCEMENT ROLE? (Short Version)

The Bush Administration is proposing the Environmental Protection Agency turn over more of its enforcement authority to the states. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham explains:

Transcript

The Bush administration is proposing the Environmental Protection Agency turn over more of its enforcement authority to the states. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


In the fiscal year 2002 budget, EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whittman proposes cutting agency staff who enforce environmental laws and in their place giving states additional money to do that job. Some environmental groups say that’s a bad idea because some states have a terrible track record on enforcing environmental laws. Eileen McMahon is with the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General. That office reports states sometimes look the other way.


“We found that the state enforcement programs could be much more effective in the deterrence and non-compliance of permits.”


The Inspector General says sometimes the states don’t enforce the law when the business is vital to the local economy. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

PAYING FARMERS TO PRESERVE LAND (Part 1)

Following World War Two, many Americans moved from cities to the suburbs for clean new houses and big lawns. The resulting urban sprawl eventually became a concern in eastern states because of their large populations and small land mass. But sprawl has only recently become an issue in the once land-rich Midwest. This spring, 135 people from Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana took a bus trip to the east coast to get ideas about containing development and protecting farmland. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports:

ROOM FOR DEVELOPMENT &Amp; FARMING? (Part 2)

Some Midwesterners concerned that urban sprawl is eating up too much farmland recently took a bus trip to the east coast. They wanted to visit states such as Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Planners in those states have been dealing with the problem of too many people and not enough land for decades. The bus tour participants looked at different ways to preserve open spaces while still allowing development. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant looks at a program that doesn’t cost taxpayers money:

Agencies Join to Fight Environmental Crimes

Officials from the U-S Coast Guard, the F-B-I, U-S customs, and
the E-P-A have signed an agreement that would allow the agencies to
more actively pursue and prosecute those who break Great Lakes
environmental laws. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Scott Willis
has more:

STATE REVAMPS PLANNING LAWS (Shorter Version)

A survey reveals most states are working from development planning
statutes put together in the 1920’s. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Lester Graham reports… one group is urging states to update their laws
to help prevent urban sprawl:

Transcript

A survey reveals most states are working from development planning statutes
put together in the 1920’s. One group is urging states to update their laws to help

prevent urban sprawl. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The American Planning Association says when Herbert Hoover was Secretary of
Commerce, the Department adopted some model planning acts. Today, many state
planning laws are still based on them. Stuart Meck is a senior researcher
with the American planning association. He says local governments control
much of zoning and planning. But the state is often the most powerful
influence on development.


“Every time a state department of transportation programs a highway
widening, or puts in a new interchange, or authorizes some type of loan to
local government to build or expand a treatment plant, that has some sort of
an impact on development.”


Meck says some states are tinkering around the edges of their planning laws.
But he argues if states are going to control urban sprawl, they need to
completely overhaul their planning statutes.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

State Revamps Planning Laws


In the Great Lakes region states have been slow to put together
legislation to address urban sprawl. Only one state in the region,
Wisconsin, has passed comprehensive reforms of its planning statutes.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports… now
developers, environmentalists, and political leaders in that state are
all reading from the same blue-print:

Transcript

In the Great Lakes region states have been slow to put together legislation
to address urban sprawl. Only one state in the region, Wisconsin, has passed
comprehensive reforms of its planning statutes. Now developers, environmentalists,

and
political leaders in that state are all reading from the same blueprint. The Great

Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


At the American Planning Association’s office in Chicago, Stuart Meck says
there’s been a huge surge in interest in trying to curb out-of-control
growth.


“It was almost as if somebody had turned on a switch in communities
across the United States and in state legislatures and there was just this
whole different environment starting about three years ago and it was no
longer business as usual.”


Meck is a senior researcher with the American Planning Association. He’s
been working to compile updated models for planning and zoning legislation.
He says the group found most state planning statutes are based on model acts
adopted by the U.S. Commerce Department in the 1920’s.


After World War II, development in the suburbs boomed, but planning laws
didn’t keep pace. Meck says most communities reacted to growth by turning to
the state, and the state reacted by building roads. Meck says few places
actually followed any kind of plan.


“And we’ve tried all these fixes like, you know, expanding our
interstate system, and widening highways and stuff like that and it doesn’t
seem to be working. The cumulative effect of all of those things is they use
up a lot of farmland; they create suburban areas in which there’s no
activity after dark, and we think what’s going on right now is sort of a
revisiting of some of earlier types of development forums, and seeing
whether there’s some value to that.”


Stuart Meck says the American Planning Association is finding cities want to turn away from endless

tracts of suburban homes on meandering streets and instead look at building neighborhoods of homes,

stores, and schools.


But an urban area’s growth is affected by development outside a single community. Meck says that’s

why state governments need to establish a framework for planning, uniform laws that help individual

communities and larger areas manage growth.


In the Great Lakes region, only one state has passed legislation that over-hauls its planning

statutes: Wisconsin.


Tom Larson is the director of land use and environmental affairs with the Wisconsin Realtors

Association. He says in the past, Wisconsin’s debate was about whether growth should be stopped.

That argument pitted pro-growth developers against anti-growth environmentalists, and towns were

not thinking of anything beyond their own borders.


‘Communities were often planning very myopically, looking at only one particular issue without

looking at potential impacts on various… on other areas of their community.”


Larson says Wisconsin’s new comprehensive planning statues acknowledge there will be growth, and

tackles the question of how to grow better.


The new statutes require more public involvement. Public hearings must be held so that residents

and neighboring communities know what the state or local government is planning. Tom Larson says

communities now have to think about how development affects not just the prosperity of a community,

but how it affects things such as parks, transportation patterns, and schools. The statutes also

close loopholes that allowed communities to ignore their own plans whenever it suited them.


Brian Ohm is an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin – Madison. He’s credited with

bringing together environmentalists, realtors, homebuilders, and government planners to draft the

legislation. Ohm says Wisconsin’s planning law reforms are broad. They’re not just about preserving

land.


“It goes way beyond just saving an acre of farmland here or there. There’s a lot of issue that are

involved and hopefully through good local comprehensive planning as a base, we can begin to address

the broader and more complex issues of sprawl.”


Ohm says reforming Wisconsin’s planning statutes won’t necessarily stop sprawl. But the

comprehensive planning process adopted by the state will make communities aware of what they’re

doing.


‘You know, communities, through their plans, will still be able to be as pro or anti sprawl as they

want. The state’s not going to dictate the outcome of that, but again it’s going to have to be—

those decisions as made
my local governments are going to be made on a more informed set of factors
through the comprehensive planning process.”


Ohm says the new planning statutes will mean local communities, counties,
and the state will all be aware of each other’s plans and how their plans
affect overall growth in an area.

Tom Larson at the Wisconsin Realtors Association says following the
comprehensive planning process will mean some changes and some
inconveniences for realtors and developers. But he says it will also mean
everyone will understand what a community’s goals are and how every sector
fits into the plan.


“What our end goal was, was to be able to plan through consensus, to
bring all the interest groups together at the local level as well as at the
state level and say, ‘How do we want our communities to grow; how do we open
up communication, make everybody part of this process, and how do we build
through consensus?’ I think that’s what… hopefully that’s what our message
is and hopefully what the legislation will encourage communities to do.”


All the parties involved say changing Wisconsin’s planning statutes was not
easy. Not every issue was resolved. They also say Wisconsin never could have
managed its growth without over-hauling the law. The American Planning
Association says states that try to tinker around the edges of their 1920’s-style

planning laws will find little success.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Trapping Laws Come Under Fire

Trapping is still a popular past time in the northern half of the
country. Mostly trappers are looking for beavers, raccoons and
muskrats.
But every year, a small number of household pets are caught as well.
As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports, one pet
owner
is fighting to change that:

Transcript

Trapping is still a popular pastime in the northern half of the country. Mostly, trappers are

looking for beavers, raccoons, and muskrats. But every year, a small number fo household pets are

caught as well. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports, one pet owner is

fighting to change that.


Valentine was Meg Massaro’s best friend. She was a black and brown boxer. And, at one time, a

mangy stray. Massaro found her on the side of the road and nursed her back to health. The two

became inseperable. Then, on a cold January morning, they went for a run on a local bike path.


“So I let her off the leash. She bounded happily in front of me for about thirty seconds. The next

thing I know I heard her screaming and I jumped in after her and she was sailing through the air

with a bucket over her head. I took the bucket off her head and there was a trap and I said to my

husband, ‘What is it?’ She kept looking at me, pleadingly her eyes were just getting bigger and

bigger. She couldn’t breathe. And animal control with the help of police were finally able to get

it off. It was about an hour and a half that she was in the trap. Of course, by that time, she was

long gone. It was gruesome, very grisly.”


The trap was about fifty feet from this bike path just outside of Albany, New York. Massaro

remembers thinking this had to be illegal. It’s an area with playgrounds and picnic benches. So,

she called New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation, and found out the trap was legally

set.


“They were really like, ‘Well what do you want us to do, lady?’ And I said, ‘I want you to go out

and see if there are any more traps and if there are, I want you to remove them.’ And the guy

said, ‘We wouldn’t be able to do that.’ So I just said, ‘Thank you very much,’ and hung up the and

I thought, ‘This is war.'”


Massaro started calling newspapers. She circulated a petition with thousands of names. And she

began lobbying – full time – to get traps out of residential areas.


“I can’t imagine that anyone wants traps near their home, near where their kids play, near where

their dogs are walking; it doesn’t make any sense to allow that.”


Albany County legislator Paulette Barletti talked to Massaro over the phone after the incident.

But she wasn’t sure it was an issue she wanted to adopt. Then, she saw photographs the police took

after Valentine’s death.


“I was actually horrified. And the first thing that came to my mind was, good grief, this could be

a child.”


Barletti introduced legislation to ban trapping on state or private land. That’s because New York,

like most states, regulates trapping on the state level. Traps can be set on most state land and

on private land with permission of the landowner.


Gordon Batcheller runs New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation’s trapping program. He

says trappers often serve as their eyes and ears in the field.


“Trapping is actually very hard, it’s hard work and it takes a lot of skills. Studies have shown

that trappers, of all outdoor users, have the highest level of all wildlife biology. They’re

extremely knowledgeable about animals. They can tell us what’s going on out there and we really

value what they tell us because they’re knowledgeable and they see things.”


Batcheller says the majority of trappers are extremely careful about where they set their traps.

And there aren’t too many pets being caught. but Batcheller says it’s clear that in those cases,

the trapper made a mistake.


“In the incidents that we’ve evaluated, the traps simply should not have been set where they were

set. Even though it was legal, poor judgement was used in those instances and experienced trappers

that look at these cases, they shake their heads and say why did they do that.”


Now, thanks in part to Meg Massaro’s campaign, Batcheller is trying to find a compromise. He’s

come up with new recommendations. They’d require trappers to move traps off the ground and onto

stands and trees where dogs can’t reach them. And, he’s proposing tougher restrictions near roads

and bike paths. Batcheller hopes the recommendations will be in place by next fall. But Meg

Massaro says it’s not enough. She’s lobbying for local control so counties can make their own

decisions about trapping. And she wants traps banned from recreational areas. But mostly, she

wants to make sure that this never happens to someone’s dog again.


“When I drover her home that first time, tears were running down my cheks that day because I

couldn’t believe how abused this dog had been. And i promised, I said it out loud to her, no one

will ever hurt you again. And I lied. I didn’t mean to, but i lied and i can’t live with that. I

have to do something to compensate for that. She deserved better, and other people and their pets

deserve better.”


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly in Albany, New York.