Director's Message
Over the years,
WOC has tended to avoid engaging in the never-ending debates about the
state’s economic woes. We feel compelled to break our silence, though,
when the economic-development policies currently being espoused lead to
unacceptable or avoidable environmental degradation or adversely impact
the rights or welfare of our citizens. Recent manifestations of Wyoming’s
"Open for Business" policies demand that we take notice. The policies described
below and elsewhere in this issue are linked by a common thread: a diminution
of the public’s right to participate in decisions that have significant
environmental and/or social consequences.
Coal bed methane permit shuts
out public
In her guest column, Jill
Morrison of the Powder River Basin Resource Council (PRBRC) writes about
the Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ’s) new general permit authorizing
the discharge of massive quantities of groundwater associated with methane
gas development. Ranchers and others in the area, whose water wells may
be left high and dry, are concerned about the long-term effects from serious
depletion of the Powder River Basin’s aquifers, as well as the environmental
impacts of pollutants contained in the water.
With the stroke of a pen,
the DEQ rescinded the public’s long-standing right to review and comment
on individual discharge proposals. Adding insult to injury, the DEQ stonewalled
PRBRC’s efforts to obtain copies of the draft permit and other crucial
information, such as water-quality analyses, needed in their review. Members
of the organization were advised that the requested files were available
for inspection — but only in the DEQ’s Cheyenne office; copies would not
be mailed, nor would they be available in the DEQ’s Sheridan office. Requiring
citizens to drive 10-12 hours round-trip to review this information is
a flagrant violation of federal regulations implementing the Clean Water
Act which direct that such information be made available to the public
"free of charge whenever possible" at "convenient locations such as public
libraries."
Oil & gas permit destroys
wetlands
In yet another effort
to "streamline" the permitting process for oil and gas development, the
Wyoming office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has proposed a general
permit which would allow the destruction of up to one acre of wetlands
for each oil or gas well drilled in Wyoming. The Corps contends the permit
will cause only minimal environmental impacts, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service disagrees. In its comments on the proposed permit, the agency wrote:
"The permit has a high potential for authorizing projects that would
cause significant cumulative impacts to waters of the United States — impacts
that could far exceed the minor impact limit necessary mandated for issuance
of a general permit."
If approved, the permit will
remain in effect for five years. During that period developers can destroy
up to 1/3 acre of wetland per well without even notifying the Corps, and
up to one acre per well after providing notice. Reservoirs designed to
store produced water (which typically contains petroleum byproducts lethal
to wildlife) can be built directly on top of perennial streams and creeks.
Worst of all, during the term of the general permit the public has no opportunity
to review or comment on specific wetland-destroying activities authorized
by the permit.
DEQ compromises citizens’ health
& safety
As Steff Kessler reports
in this issue, the DEQ has drafted legislation which it hopes will settle
the ongoing debate over "brownfields." Some believe the bill represents
a reasonable compromise between the desires of the state’s business community
for regulatory stability and the more important need to protect public
health, safety and welfare. Unfortunately, the only thing compromised by
the bill is the right of citizens to an environment free from unsafe levels
of toxic poisons and wastes.
The DEQ bill invites local
governments (counties, cities and towns) to establish — "following notice
and a 30-day public comment period with an opportunity for a hearing" —
toxic waste zones, euphemistically referred to as "environmental control
areas" (ECAs). Pollution inside ECAs would be allowed at levels much higher
than lands located outside these areas. Inside ECAs, zoning and other "institutional
controls" would be used to restrict future uses of the property that would
be considered unsafe in a polluted environment, such as residential development.
Incredibly, the DEQ’s bill contains no limits on the size of ECAs; no uniform
procedures or criteria to guide their establishment; no state involvement
in the designation of such areas; and no opportunities or procedures for
citizens to challenge the decision to create an ECA.
It is instructive to contrast
the process by which lands in the state may be declared "rare and uncommon."
Before any land may receive this protective designation, the proponent
(usually a citizen or group concerned about protecting the area) must complete
a very detailed and onerous application process — set out in no less than
7 1/2 pages of DEQ rules. Notice (personal service or certified mail) must
be provided to all landowners in and adjacent to the area proposed for
designation and be published in newspapers with statewide circulation.
The application (eight copies)
must include, among other things, "a list of the names and addresses of
the surface and mineral owners whose lands are included within the area
proposed for designation…with a description of the ownership interest of
each surface and mineral owner, including a legal description of the lands
in which each person has an interest." Once the application is deemed complete,
the state Environmental Quality Council schedules a formal hearing, following
45-days’ advance legal notice (costs borne by the citizen) to all affected
property owners and the public. The hearing may include testimony from
witnesses, who may be cross-examined by the Council.
Finally, the Council issues
a decision which any interested party may challenge. Forgive me, but something
is very wrong with this picture. Local governments can create toxic waste
zones virtually willy-nilly, but citizens who wish to protect our most
sensitive and unique environments must jump through innumerable hoops in
a highly complicated, expensive and legalistic process.
I remember when Wyoming didn’t
believe it was necessary to flaunt its "open for business" position. To
be sure, we still had plenty of business, yet more thought and care seemed
to be given to protecting the state’s extraordinary natural wealth. I remember
a different slogan, one that seemed to better reflect our aspirations and
unified us as a state: "On Wyoming’s Terms." This credo suggested we could
develop our natural resources, but not at the expense of our clean air
and pure water, awe-inspiring vistas and abundant wildlife. I think we
need to remind ourselves that it is not necessary for Wyoming to muzzle
its citizens or sell its soul in order to attract new businesses.
Dan Heilig |
Privacy Policy