Three issues: Landfill moratorium, drinking water and ethics
With the end of the General Assembly session nearing (really, it is – it has to be – doesn't it – please say yes) there are only a handful of issues that are really and truly on the radar down here. Among that handful are these three:
Landfill moratorium:
You may remember that the Senate passed a landfill moratorium bill a while back. Aimed at a few mega-landfills down east, the bill would have the state take an 18 month break in permitting new trash facilities.
The folks fighting this bill the hardest – on both sides of the debate - are the folks who live near the potential mega landfills. Some say their towns ought to be able to earn revenue from a new industry, while others say the new industry will be harmful to property values, the environment, etc...
A couple of new players jumped into the debate today. Joe Sinsheimer, a consultant who runs the jimblackmustgo.com website, sent a release suggesting that money from lobbyists was influencing the House’s unwillingness to move on the bill. That was followed up by an e-mail from Democracy North Carolina, which showed contributions from trash industry lobbyists to members of the legislature.
Now, there is indubitably an abiding connection between money, power and influence. That connection may be at play in this case, but it is not the only thing in play right now and doesn’t feel like the strongest factor at play.
For example, among the folks listed as having gotten money from waste industry lobbyists over the past two years is Rep. Pricey Harrison, a Greensboro Democrat. Harrison is a big supporter of the moratorium. Sen. Kay Hagan, a Greensboro Democrat, is also on the list and she voted in favor of the moratorium.
Sure, these could be the exceptions that prove the rule. Or they could be exceptions that make us stop and ask what else is going on here?
I’m still reporting this out, but a majority of Democrats in the House reportedly favor the moratorium. But there are a dozen or so House Dems who oppose the measure at this point. The bulk of those in opposition, I’m told, are members of the black legislative caucus. That’s due to some of the race and socioeconomic issues involved with this that I’m not going to dive into here.
Remember, Democrats only hold the House by a 63-57 margin. And if a preponderance of Republicans oppose a moratorium, the Democrats would need all or almost all their troops on board to get the measure passed. So it makes sense that the Dems are negotiating among themselves to make sure the bill they tackle on the floor is acceptable to all.
There’s more to come on this. Negotiations are continuing and folks lobbying both sides of the issue are going to be out in force her in Cap City this week.
Drinking water:
The House Environment Committee took up Senate Bill 1132 Monday afternoon, except they didn’t take up whatever the bill said when it came over.
Rather, they plugged in language from something known as House Bill 1778, which basically would affect when polluters would have to clean up ground water supplies that they had fouled.
The bill would put something called risk based remediation into play.
Under this system, a company that polluted ground water – from which well water supplies are drawn – could avoid cleaning it up if it could show the chances it would be used for drinking water were minimal.
The rub is this: the corporate community and many representatives, lead by Rep. Pryor Gibson, would like to put that idea into practice with few or minimal fees in place.
Environmentally minded folks, including the Department of Natural Resources, say that companies ought to have to pay a premium for leaving behind polluted ground water. That money could then be taken and used to clean up other contaminated sites.
The theory, on the DENR side, is that the state and its citizens should be compensated for the loss of a natural resource, similar to when a company has to pay up for causing a fish kill.
Gov. Mike Easley opposes the bill in her current form and even dispatched one of his chief lieutenants to speak at Monday’s committee meeting. And word is the Senate doesn’t think much of the current form of the bill.
Still, the House Environment Committee approved the bill 14-8 and it’s headed to the House floor. And opponents of the measure are worried that in the waning days of session, goofy stuff can happen.
This is another one to keep an eye on.
Ethics:
Finally, here’s a short note on the remaining ethics legislation.
As you may remember, some of the chunkiest bits of lobbying and ethics reform have been sent to a House-Senate conference committee. These are really the bits that will govern the pernicious aspects of the money-power relations that the folks in the first section of this post are worried about.
Speaking just before the 7 p.m. House session this evening, Rep. Joe Hackney, an Orange County Democrat, said that negotiations were proceeding.
When asked if he thought the conference committee might be reviewing a final bill tomorrow, Hackney said yes.
“In fact, that would be a goal,” Hackney said.
If the lobbying bill were ready for the full House and Senate to look at Wednesday or early Thursday, then an end of the week adjournment is feasible says those in the know.
Again, this is something that we scrubby media types will be keeping an eye on.