Wisconsin
"Job Creation Act" Would Create Environmental Havoc |
Wisconsin AB 655, known as the "Job Creation Act," has
been trumpeted by Republican legislative leaders as a sweeping regulatory
reform bill that would make it easier for businesses to operate, by
accelerating approval of air and water permits. Actually, it is a
bill that compromises the health of Wisconsin's environment. With
little notice to the public and heavy involvement by the state's various
business lobbyists, the bill was originally introduced with only days
remaining in the regular 2003 legislative session. After protest,
from both the public and Democratic legislators, the bill's authors
were asked to scale back some of the provisions that would weaken
Wisconsin's environmental laws. In December, a compromise was reached
in principle, but the new "compromise" bill, according to
an internal analysis prepared by administration officials, does not
contain the compromises agreed upon. According to a memo from two
Department of Natural Resources staffers to the agency's chief negotiators
and the governor's legislative liaison, the bill "reverts to
many of the provisions of the original drafts of SB 313/AB 655 and
will lead to significant habitat destruction and adverse impacts on
public rights in navigable waters." One provision contained in
the new bill, touted as the "final bill," sanctions the
use of "general" permits, which are much less regulated,
and would be issued for a broad range of activities that affect lakes
and streams. The new version also fails to restore existing statutory
standards that protect water quality, habitat, or other rights in
public waters. Similar to its first introduction, drafts of the amended
version were first made available for review at 8 a.m. on January
7, and the Assembly Committee on Job Creation began a hearing on AB
655 at 8 a.m. on January 8, in which the amended version was adopted.
No public hearings were held on the new version. Wisconsin's Attorney
General voiced concern, saying that it would be difficult to evaluate
the implications of the of 79-page bill in such a short time. Amidst
all of this, no proof has been offered whether or not the bill would
actually create jobs. It seems that the supporters of the bill are
not interested in actually creating jobs or in having a full and fair
hearing of their proposal. Instead, they are pushing their bill through
the legislative process as fast as they can, without public input
or discussion. Perhaps, they are afraid that such discussion would
reveal that, while this bill does nothing to create jobs, it does
plenty to weaken environmental standards. |
|