Officials in Summit County last week announced their intentions to either restrict or ban open-pit cyanide leach mining in January. Industry officials and some state politicians contend a county ban is unnecessary because current state regulations provide enough protection. Current state regulations, passed after a cyanide leach mine in Summitville contaminated groundwater with bits of heavy metal and cyanide solutions, require companies to file an "environmental protection plan" before operations begin. However, according to a spokesperson for the Alliance for Responsible Mining, the law, "while well-intended, has failed to protect the environment and communities from contaminated water. The law is powerless to stop water pollution. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be a kind of technology where you can regulate away the problem. The pollution seems to be inherent in the process." Some officials weighed in commenting the county would most likely not create a ban. Mark Truckey, director of long-range planning for Summit County, said the county planning commission has recommended the "middle ground" of regulating such operations instead of imposing an outright ban. "The idea is that we wouldn't necessarily ban it, but we'd have a permitting process so that we'd have the opportunity to feel comfortable about how the operation would work." Although Colorado's past economy was dependent on mining revenue, its reliance has shifted to tourism. State officials have also mulled over the idea of a cyanide ban, but have not moved far with the idea. Montana voters banned the practice in 1998, while the Wisconsin state Senate passed a proposal banning cyanide that later died in the State Assembly. For information on the use of cyanide in mining, visit: http://www.serconline.org/mining/index.html.

The Senate recently approved a measure that would block efforts by California and other states to reduce the pollution spewed by small gasoline engines in machines such as lawn mowers, tractors, forklifts, and chain saws. This action, the latest in a series by the Bush administration or the GOP-controlled Congress to challenge or curtail California's environmental laws on issues including offshore oil drilling and hybrid cars, marks only the second congressional decision since 1974 to preempt California's special authority under the Clean Air Act to set tougher pollution regulations than federal standards. The amendment, attached to a spending bill for a variety of government agencies, would give the federal Environmental Protection Agency sole authority to regulate gasoline engines smaller than 50 horsepower and would direct the agency to propose new regulations for the engines by the end of next year. California Air Resources Board officials said the measure would nullify five state regulations, including one approved Sept. 25 to cut emissions from lawn and garden equipment by 35%. Briggs & Stratton Corp., the world's largest producer of these engines, spent $250,000 in lobbying efforts and contends that revamping its production facilities in response to California's regulations would be so expensive that it would close the facilities, two of which are in Missouri, moving production overseas. But, in a submission to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Briggs & Stratton said California's regulations would not have a "material effect on its financial condition."

The North Carolina Pesticide Board decided to keep regulations that prevent pesticide vapor from drifting within 100 feet of homes and 300 feet of schools, hospitals, churches, and nursing homes. The decision came in response to more than 2,000 public comments opposed to a proposal by crop dusters that would allow small amounts of pesticide residue in the buffer zones. "The current rules have worked well for many years and have been protective of the public," said Scott Whitford, chairman of the pesticide board and a farmer in Pamlico County. "It's a very emotional issue. We're not going to do anything to jeopardize the health of citizens." Elbie Powers, the proposal's founder, said that the decision was disappointing because it prevented him from spraying pecan groves near homes when requested. He suggested a case-by-case exemption procedure.

Owensboro District Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. ruled this week that Arkansas-based Tyson Foods is partly responsible for air pollution at factory farms it helps operate in the Western District of Kentucky. Although Tyson Foods argued that the farms were operated by contractors, Judge McKinley said that the company involvement in the facility design and conditions, and its ownership of the poultry raised there, meant that Tyson was an operator. As an operator, it is responsible for ammonia and other pollutant air emissions. The verdict may have implications nationwide because it will link individual facilities to other sites under the same ownership, requiring a more integrated regulatory approach. In the Tyson case, this linkage could force the company to report ammonia releases to the federal National Response Center. The Judge has yet to rule on whether neighboring landowners were affected by emissions and should be awarded damages. "We're one step closer to cleaning up factory-farm pollution," said Barclay Rogers, a Sierra Club attorney in California, who worked on the case.

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reduced its permit-processing time from an average of 62 days to 12 days. The Iowa Association of Business and Industry and the Iowa Environmental Council have praised the streamlined processing, saying it is good for business without compromising quality of life or the environment. Gov. Tom Vilsack stressed that DNR employees spend the same amount of time reviewing applications to ensure that they are within pollution standards. The increased response rate was achieved by reducing waiting time between various reviewers and by decreasing the average number of reviewers from 18 to 4.

Wildlife, it turns out, is valuable to the state of Alaska. About 185,500 visitors to Alaska spent $358 million to watch wildlife in 2001, said Michelle Sydeman, from the Division of Wildlife Conservation. These visitors' total impact reached an estimated $660 million, placing Alaska among the top five states in terms of economic benefit from wildlife viewing. In addition, about 170,000 state residents spent $81 million to watch wildlife and two-thirds of hunters are also wildlife viewers, according to a 1997 statewide survey. Alaska could do much more to tap into these tourism dollars and create more opportunities for businesses and viewing, Sydeman said. Maine, for example, collects $16 million in sales tax revenue from wildlife viewing and businesses that promote watchable wildlife pay $8 million in state corporate income tax. The Division of Wildlife Conservation wants to do more to publicize Alaska's wealth of wildlife and create places for people to go to see the animals, such as trails, visitor centers, and viewing stations, but it needs money. Last legislative session, the division proposed a $15-per-person wildlife conservation pass. The bill, supported by Gov. Frank Murkowski, would have raised $8 million to $10 million for wildlife viewing and education programs and management of nongame species. The bill passed in the House Resources Committee, but a companion bill stalled in Senate Resources. For more on how your state can protect wildlife and make money at the same time, visit: http://www.serconline.org/fiscal_issues.html.

A new legislative report recommends restrictions that would give the state more control over the wastewater discharged by cruise ships traveling through Maine's coastal waters. Vessels carrying 50 or more passengers would have to register with the state and pay a fee. The money would be used by the state to collect information on the ships' waste treatment systems and the amount of pollution they discharge. The report also recommends new licensing restrictions on the so-called "graywater" from ships. Maine would become the first state in the nation to require larger ships to pay a licensing fee for dumping the waste in state waters. Graywater is the wastewater from onboard showers, galleys, and any other source besides toilets, but tests have shown it can contain even more fecal bacteria than sewage, or "blackwater." It also contains high levels of nutrients and chemicals used in cleaning agents. Federal law prohibits Maine from regulating blackwater discharges, although the state can apply to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to create federal no-discharge zones. The report from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection was requested by Maine lawmakers, who failed to act on two related bills during the last legislative session. The new state graywater regulations described in the report would apply only to larger ships, those carrying at least 250 passengers. The ships would be required to pay an annual $1,200 licensing fee if they want to discharge into Maine waters, in addition to the proposed annual registration fee, which would range from $1,000 for smaller ships to $3,100 for larger vessels.

Water is the number one environmental issue for Georgia residents, more important than air pollution, landfills, and loss of wildlife habitats, according to a survey by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Fifty-eight percent of Georgians said less water should be used even when lakes are full and rivers are running strong, indicating receptivity to a new state plan to create a marketing campaign to encourage Georgians to conserve water. Metro Atlanta leaders, in particular, are convinced water conservation is necessary to accommodate the 2 million to 4 million people expected to move to the area in the next three decades. State officials have predicted the region's lakes and rivers might not be able to sustain additional population after about 2030, and some water experts have questioned whether the water will last that long. State legislators and Atlanta city officials are looking into multiple ways to meet the projected demand for water, including conservation, which can help improve water quality in the state's rivers and lakes, maintain ecological diversity, and save water customers money as well. For more on how your state can conserve water, visit: http://www.serconline.org/waterconservation/pkg_frameset.html.

Sprawl has become a serious problem in many cities throughout the United States. Not only is sprawl damaging to the environment, but it is detrimental to the quality of life for people living in many of the communities throughout the country. In New Jersey, where sprawl has become a major concern among its many inhabitants, two bills pushed by Governor James E. McGreevey have been recently proposed to try to combat the problem. One of the bills would require a fee from developers. The purpose of the fee would be to help offset some of the hidden costs associated with sprawl. The other bill enacts a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. The TDR program gives communities control over where growth occurs, while preserving other areas as open space. Both bills face opposition from the state League of Municipalities, and are currently under negotiation between the administration and opposing interests. "We have been seeking compromise language which promotes smart growth and encourages participation in the State Plan process," said William Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities. Although builders have agreed to "reasonable" fees, the League of Municipalities is opposed to a proposal which would link the fees to the State Plan, which is a blueprint for regulating growth. Environmentalists worry that without such a link, the fees would have little impact on promoting better growth planning. For more information on how your state can control sprawl, visit: http://www.serconline.org/sprawl/pkg_frameset.html.

Two years ago, worries about high methane levels at the construction site of the Belmont Learning Center in California forced construction of the school to be suspended. After an expensive cleanup operation was conducted, construction of the school resumed. Since then, California has enacted regulations which require testing for contaminates at proposed school construction sites. Since January 2000, 1,236 potential school sites have been tested. Of the 1,236 sites, investigators have found harmful chemicals at 317 sites. Construction plans were abandoned at 119 of the contaminated sites, and another 77 sites have had required cleanups. Substances which have been found at potential construction sites have ranged from DDT, a cancer causing pesticide that was banned in 1972, to lead, which can produce brain damage, anemia, and muscle weakness in children. While some people believe that the regulations are necessary, others feel that they create unnecessary delays to new construction and have created a financial burden on school districts, which are forced to pay the bill for the mandatory contaminate testing. Officials at some school districts argue that the testing requirements are too strict and costly. "All I know is prior to the existence of this law, we were pretty much taking care of these issues ourselves," says Brian Sullivan, director of facilities for the Oceanside Unified School District. Others feel that the requirements do not go far enough. They would like to require the 9,087 existing public schools, which are currently exempt from the law, to be tested for contaminants. Paul Ruther, an employee for the national nonprofit Center for Health Justice, believes that the regulations are well worth the money. "If you don't pay for it now, you're gonna pay for it later in more than dollars and cents," he says. For information on toxins at school building sites, visit: http://www.serconline.org/toxicschoolsites/index.html.