In Jan. 2004, Georgia Sen. Eric Johnson introduced SB 524, which sought to restrict the ability of concerned parties to appeal pollution permits. The bill, as introduced, would have required the appealing party to post a bond as a prerequisite for an appeal. That bond would have to cover "all loss, damages, interest, attorney fees, and costs and expenses of litigation" that could be incurred by the business or government entity that received the permit, and would be unduly prohibitive to all but the very wealthy who try to oppose such permits. The bill as proposed may have violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by offering financial protection only to the permittee and not to the appellant or agency. The bill was supported by industry groups that complained of having to jump through hoops to obtain a permit, only to have their development halted when an appeal was issued -- usually by "environmental groups." However, citizen groups say those complaints lack merit and insist that the majority of past appeals were ruled valid and resulted in permit modifications or other changes. In other words, in most cases where an appeal was issued, the permittee or the permit issued was found to be in violation of the law and detrimental to the environment and human health. Reactions to the bill from citizen groups and others in Georgia resulted in the Senate committee introducing a substitute for SB 524, which removes the bond requirement but retains the intent of the original bill. The new substitute removes the so-called "stay rule," which halts the development during the appeals process to allow the state to consider and rule on the appeal. This version passed the Senate, and is under consideration in the House. If SB 524 were passed today, it would allow developments to proceed immediately during an appeals process; if a judge later finds that the action was illegal, they may be unable to undo or hold parties liable for any harm that might have occurred. SB 524 makes it more difficult for citizens to hold corporations liable for environmental damage, and may prevent the state from correcting the harm done even if an appeal is found to be valid. This is a dangerous bill, and should not pass.

Ran 3/22/2004