[Durham INC] FW: Today's Regulatory Reform public hearing: Wilmington

[Pat Carstensen]

One of the General Assembly's stinking ideas is a "listening tour" about what environmental regulations are getting in the way of lining pockets of their supporters.  Some of the complaints are of direct concern to neighborhoods.  To quote relevant bits from below:
"Some homebuilders expressed frustration with inconsistent interpretation of environmental regulations by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. They urged more consistency in application of rules and less subjective interpretations rather than outright repeal of building regulations. Several developers urged the panel to consider weakening Department of Transportation requirements that developers pay for widening of roads to accommodate traffic generated by their developments and similar road improvements. Those requirements save taxpayers’ money. But the developers said the current regulations give transportation engineers too much latitude to require transportations improvements a mile or more from a development. Civil engineers who work with builders in designing plans for developments said the process of obtaining a stormwater runoff permit is complicated by subjective interpretation of the stormwater runoff rules and different requirements imposed from one regional office to another."
My interpretation of "inconsistent interpretation" is that they want to get everyone the same treatment as the ones who have hired expensive lawyers to find the loopholes did.
I don't suppose they will have a website so those of us who can't afford to take a day off to go to a hearing can file comments too.  That would be too much like democracy.  But I'll keep you informed.

Regards, pat

Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:24:25 -0500
From: molly.diggins at sierraclub.org
Subject: Today's Regulatory Reform public hearing: Wilmington
To: NC-LEADERS at LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG

All, today's public hearing in Wilmington to call for comment on "burdensome rules"  went better than might have been expected, thanks to a great organizing effort on our end. Special acknowledgement to Earla Cope from the Cape Fear Group for her excellent comments.


Let's keep up the effort in Charlotte--the next stop on the legislature's "listening tour"!
Below is a report on today's hearing, written by one of our team...



The Joint Select Committee on Regulatory Reform, a
legislative panel chartered to boost business by slashing government
regulations, held its first public hearing Friday in Wilmington. Approximately
40 people spoke at the hearing, and many of them urged the legislators to
proceed cautiously in weakening state laws that protect the environment, water
quality and public health.

 

Rep. Pat McElraft, (R-Carteret), co-chair of the joint
select committee, opened the public hearing by inviting speakers to talk about
rules and regulations that were affecting lives in a negative way. “There are
all kinds of rules and regulations,” McElraft said. “We understand they are not
all bad… We want to make sure we balance the economy and ecology.”

 

The special select committee’s listening tour is a creation
of the General Assembly’s new majority, which is pushing bills to repeal
existing regulations and break apart the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. The committee has 18 members. Six Republican
members of the 18-member committee attended the hearing and no Democrats. Sen.
Tom Goolsby, (R-New Hanover) welcomed the panel to Wilmington, saying its job
was to “get state government off your back.”

 

Sen. Harry Brown, (R-Onslow), co-chairman of the committee,
said the lawmakers wanted to hear which rules were slowing down
businesses.  Added committee member Sen.
Brent Jackson, (R-Duplin), “I currently believe we have more than enough laws
on the books.”

 

But one of the first speakers, Earla Pope, a New Hanover
County resident, disagreed. Pope said her house was located beside a sizable
tract of undeveloped land that was a wetland area. Existing state and federal
regulations prevent disturbance of wetlands without mitigation of the impacts.  “If the minimum regulations of law aren’t
enforced, my property would be flooded and the ground water polluted,” Pope
said. “Please don’t weaken the current regulations.”

 

Some homebuilders expressed frustration with inconsistent
interpretation of environmental regulations by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. They urged more consistency in application
of rules and less subjective interpretations rather than outright repeal of
building regulations.

 

Several developers urged the panel to consider weakening
Department of Transportation requirements that developers pay for widening of
roads to accommodate traffic generated by their developments and similar road
improvements. Those requirements save taxpayers’ money. But the developers said
the current regulations give transportation engineers too much latitude to
require transportations improvements a mile or more from a development.

 

Civil engineers who work with builders in designing plans
for developments said the process of obtaining a stormwater runoff permit is
complicated by subjective interpretation of the stormwater runoff rules and
different requirements imposed from one regional office to another. 

 

Mike Giles, of the N.C. Coastal Federation, said the state’s
stormwater runoff rules took years to develop and were intended to prevent
further pollution of coastal waters by runoff. Many coastal waters already are
closed to shellfishing because of pollution. The rules need to be strengthened,
not weakened, Giles said. “Clean air and clean water is an economic strategy,”
Giles said.

 

Giles commented that the committee had given little advance
public notice of the hearings. Rep. McElraft responded that the notices went
out on Tuesday, but acknowledged it was short notice.

 

Molly Diggins, state director of the North Carolina Chapter
of the Sierra Club, expressed a concern that in the rush to cut regulations,
citizens could see a loss of important protections for the health and
environment. Before they were adopted, many of the rules went through a lengthy
review process during which all viewpoints were weighed. 

 

Tom Fetzer, representing Waste Industries Inc., and the
solid waste industry, said the requirement that solid waste companies renew
landfill permits every five years was overly burdensome and costly. Such permit
reviews consider whether landfills are complying with environmental regulations
or leaking pollution into the groundwater. Fetzer called for the legislature to
rewrite the 5-year landfill permit renewal requirement to make a permit good
for the life of a landfill. 

 

Christine Ellis, the Waccamaw Riverkeeper, expressed concern
about the term regulatory reform and said rules such as buffers along streams
and rivers and wetlands protections safeguarded water quality. “I’m hoping
regulatory reform does not mean regret for not protecting the rights of every
North Carolina citizen to fishable, swimmable, drinkable waters.” 

 

Michael Rice, representing the grassroots group, Save the
Cape, said the Cape Fear River is a polluted river. Referring to the prospect
of cutting regulations, Rice paraphrased the poet Robert Frost: “Don’t ever
take a fence down until you know why it was put up,” he said. 

 

The joint committee holds its next meeting later this month in
Charlotte. It is supposed to make recommendations for regulatory reform to the
full legislature by May 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 
-- 
Molly Diggins
State Director
NC Sierra Club
(p) 919.833.8467
(e) molly.diggins at sierraclub.org



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the NC-LEADERS list, send any message to:
NC-LEADERS-signoff-request at LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG

Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
 http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110312/36117924/attachment.html>