by Carla Klein, Chapter Director
Missouri is blessed with pure, clean streams and lakes that provide our families with clean drinking water and places to swim, fish and boat. Our state webpage tells us that, “Missouri has 902,000 acres of water, 50,000 miles of rivers and streams and more than 1,100 known springs, including the nation’s largest single outlet spring, Big Spring at Van Buren.” Missouri’s spectacular variety of geology, ecology, and plant species are world renown.
In a state as beautiful and diverse as Missouri where tourism is one of the top three revenue producing industries, and the fastest growing element of the state’s economy, does it seem wise or economically prudent to be ranked last on spending for environmental protection?
Missouri was recently ranked number 50 in per capita spending for environmental protection according to Governingmagazine’s fall issue. During these tough economic times, when nearly every state government is struggling to balance their budget, it may seem understandable if not justifiable that these cuts are necessary. We all understand economic downturn and know tough decisions must be made. However, the attack on Missouri’s environmental spending began during times of economic prosperity.
The Department of Natural Resources, the agency charged with protecting our states natural resources, has had their general revenue budget cut 75% since 2001, and the Governor has proposed another 33% cut in their remaining general revenue budget this year. This cut is far greater than any other state agency. One might wonder why the Missouri legislature would rank protecting the environment as such a low priority in a state where citizens overwhelmingly rank clean water and clean air as high priority issues.
What might account for this lapse in judgment? Spending a few days attending committee meetings where Missouri’s environmental laws are being introduced and debated may help provide some clarity. Watching the parade of industry lobbyists in the halls crafting their wish list may provide some insight. In a matter of weeks the Missouri legislature has introduced bill after bill to weaken environmental laws and place more restraints on the agencies charged with our resource protection.
Some of the most offensive bills this session are anti-environmental bills like HB 215 “no stricter than federal” meant to limit our diverse state’s protection to minimum federal standards. In a state that has more caves and springs than any other, minimum federal standards are not adequate. SB 36 takes away citizens right to appeal DNR decisions. In addition SB 36 requires DNR to perform cost-benefit analysis before they can make environmental regulation, but it only allows the monetary cost to businesses to be considered. The Departments are not currently staffed for this function. This legislation would result in already understaffed departments cutting vital services such as field inspections and enforcement.
Essentially these bills are saying that before any laws can be passed to protect the health of Missouri’s citizens and the environment, the DNR must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the harm in each specific case! Imagine if this logic were applied to other state agencies. I suppose that everyone could drive whatever speed they wanted until they caused an accident, at which time the State Highway department would determine what speed limit was appropriate for that individual. So much for being proactive and protecting human health and the environment!
As unreasonable as these bills seem, last Thursday a bill was introduced that truly added insult to injury. The industry representatives lined up again to testify before the Senate Agriculture, Conservation, Parks and Natural Resources Committee in favor of SB 398, the “Super Commission bill”. Industry representatives came to declare not only have they been unfairly regulated by the DNR, but by the volunteer citizens commissions as well.
There are currently six citizens commissions appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate that serve to provide oversight to the Department of Natural Resources decisions and rules. Theses volunteer commissioners have served the state of Missouri and its citizens well since 1965.
The Commissioners appointed are highly qualified individuals that have particular expertise on the boards they serve: clean air, clean water, hazardous waste, land reclamation, soil and water and safe drinking water. These six volunteer commissions currently operate at a cost to the state of approximately $36,000 per year. The funding pays for staff to investigate the various cases brought before the commissions and for their travel and lodging when they travel to various areas of the state.
SB 398 would abolish the current volunteer citizens commissions and transfer the responsibility, rights, powers and functions granted to the director of the Department of Natural Resources to this newly established super commission. These five individuals are to receive an annual salary of $95,000 each. Throw in some additional backup staff for the Super Commission and we are looking at a cost of $1.5 million. Now one might ask where they think this $1.5 million would come from during this tight fiscal year. No problem, the bill has a zero fiscal note because they plan to cut this $1.5 million from the Department of Natural Resources budget. This would require the termination of another 33 state employees that work to monitor and enforce current environmental laws.
SB 398 can only be seen as a power grab by industries that think they can get more of what they want through a politically appointed commission than through the citizen’s commissions and the regulatory agencies. This removal of key decision-making from the Department of Natural Resources staff and commissions, where the technical expertise on environmental issues resides, is an extreme and unnecessary change.
It is especially inappropriate to fund this Super Commission by taking funds from an already understaffed department, cutting vital services such as field inspections and enforcement, and concentrating these revenues into the hands of a few highly paid individuals. In a state with such amazing natural resources that depends on much of its revenue from tourism, this is just plain bad environmental and economic policy.
Every Sierran who cares about clean air, clean water, and Missouri’s natural beauty should call their legislators and ask them to oppose regulations that further limit state agencies from protecting our health and environment. Let them know that it is unacceptable that protection of Missouri’s vital resources is ranked the lowest in the nation.