Environmental protection or economic growth? We need both

Posted 8/21/12

Last week, the Pennsylvania House took the controversial step of removing an important environmental mandate that requires riparian stream buffers and riparian forest buffers be used or installed …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Environmental protection or economic growth? We need both

Posted

Last week, the Pennsylvania House took the controversial step of removing an important environmental mandate that requires riparian stream buffers and riparian forest buffers be used or installed under the state’s Clean Streams Law to avoid polluting the waters of the commonwealth. (According to the organization PennEnvironment, lobbyists for Pennsylvania’s developers “ran a full court press in the last week to ensure the House of Representatives passed the bill.”) The bill, if approved by the Senate and signed by the governor, would override a current Pennsylvania Department of Environmental protection (DEP) regulatory rule; the change would allow riparian buffers to be offered only as an option on the list of best management practices (BMPs) and design standards for developers of construction projects that disturb more than an acre of soil within 150 feet of a stream or body of water. It also proposes a formula (one-to-one replacement, by area) for offsetting the loss of riparian buffers by creating new ones, preferably nearby.

Clean water advocates condemned the House action, pointing to overwhelming scientific evidence that supports the effectiveness of riparian buffers in preventing and filtering out water pollutants such as nutrients, chemical pesticides and sediment. But the science shows that these buffers do much more. (Remember this list, as we will come back to it.) Riparian buffers decrease flood damage by reducing volume and velocity of floodwaters; prevent stream bank erosion; increase groundwater recharge; and improve wildlife habitat and biodiversity.

Meanwhile, supporters of removing this effective tool, which environmental regulators use successfully to protect clean water, argued that the mandate discourages economic development. We believe this argument, which has been expressed in our region by many local government leaders, is misguided.

First, the DEP rule established in 2010, which instituted the 150-foot riparian buffer requirement in specially protected watersheds—those with Exceptional Value (EV) and High Quality (HQ) waters—in reality had limited impact on development statewide. While tens of thousands of acres in our local counties seemingly would be affected by DEP’s rule, in truth the rule applies only to those new construction projects that require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for disturbing more than an acre of land. (NPDES is a federally-required permit program administered by the states for projects or facilities that discharge pollution directly to surface waters.) Individual homes on a municipal system, those that use a septic system, or those that do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit and are not affected by the riparian buffer rules.

The numbers of development projects affected has been quite small. According to Kelly Heffner, DEP Deputy Secretary for Water Programs, giving testimony in January 2014 before the PA House Environmental and Energy Resources Committee, “Since the… buffer requirements became effective in 2010, DEP has issued approximately 6,337 NPDES stormwater construction permits. Of those 6,337 permits, 155 permits (2.4%) included riparian buffers and of that subset of 155 permits, 75 permits (48.3%) qualified for waivers of the riparian buffer requirements.” That’s little more than 1% of development projects in the state.

Similarly, Monroe County (PA) Conservation District chief Craig Todd testified that between 2010 and January 2014, 45 of the 49 NPDES permits that were applied for “either did not need to address the riparian buffer requirements because they qualified for an exemption or grandfathering, or they received a waiver. The remaining four projects avoided all impacts to the riparian buffers.” Supporters of DEP’s enforcement of its riparian buffer rule point to this as the best way to avoid the buffer issue, by changing the construction project’s design plan to comply with the rule.

Looking at this evidence, we conclude that the regulatory process had not been broken in the first place because ample exemptions, waivers and alternatives are available. However, when elected officials bow to political pressure and weaken our clean water protections, there are consequences. Without the mandate, developers will opt for the easiest and/or least expensive BMP, the lowest common denominator to comply with anti-pollution rules—for example, constructing a retention basin. As Maya van Rossum of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network explains, “A retention basin will give you clean water, but then you lose all of the other benefits of a riparian buffer. It’s not an equal tradeoff. Buffers for basins is not a fair tradeoff.” (Look again at the list of additional benefits we mentioned above.) She also criticized the offset and buffer replacement option because it would create a gap in the buffer, opening the door for pollution to flow in.

Van Rossum also spoke about the issue of who pays. When pollution happens, taxpayers pay to clean it up and restore water quality, while buffer protection to prevent pollution upfront is at the expense of the developer who is causing it. Removing the riparian buffer mandate “puts the burden of future harm on the community, rather than insuring that the developer pays,” she said. With the mandate, “developers will still develop; they will just develop better so they don’t do damage.”

She also highlighted the potential for flood damage that results from loss of riparian buffers, an issue of increasing importance these days. “The cost of floods falls not only on homeowners, but also on the public purse,” she said. “When culverts fail, when roads are washed out, when bridges and infrastructure are undermined, the community pays, not the developer who made the money.”

The riparian buffer mandate is not some pie-in-the-sky environmental ideal without practical repercussions. We believe that the value of buffers far surpasses any perceived harm that developers assert. (In fact there are studies that indicate riparian buffers that create greenways enhance both scenic and property value.)

We believe that polluters should accept their responsibility to mitigate pollution via the best and most scientifically verified methods possible, i.e. pay for their pollution. We believe that our local elected officials must realize that environmental rules are not the enemy and that dismantling environmental protections ultimately leads to environmental degradation. It is the job of politicians to put the needs of the whole community first. It’s not a matter of having one or the other; we need to accomplish our economic goals and also protect the environment. We need both.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here