Legislature Anti-Environment, Critics Say Conservation League Attacks Recent Session As Favoring Business Over Public Interest

The legislative session that closed last week was an anti-environment session that favored business interests over the public interest, the Idaho Conservation League said Tuesday.

“We think this year’s Legislature and the governor are the most anti-environment combination in the West,” said ICL’s Mike Medberry.

Gov. Phil Batt, who announced he’s signed into law a bill limiting the use of the “public trust doctrine” by citizens challenging the use of Idaho water, said the state is doing what Idahoans want.

“I think the election reflects the desire of the majority of the populace to allow reasonable use of our natural resources for business purposes,” Batt said in an interview.

He added, “The environmentalists can’t always expect that their cause will be fully adopted.”

Lynn Tominaga, a former state senator who lobbied for the public-trust bill on behalf of the Idaho Water Users Association, an irrigators’ group, said, “You’ve got to remember the Legislature is elected by the people of the state. Are they really anti-environment? I don’t think so.”

Timber industry lobbyist Joe Hinson said of the conservationists’ claims, “They’re long on throwing rocks, and short on constructive efforts. It just irritates me.”

All sides do agree on one accomplishment this session. So-called “brown-fields” legislation, which grants tax breaks and immunity to property owners who clean up old contamination on their land, was rewritten after Batt asked that all sides sit down together.

Both industry and conservation groups supported the rewritten bill, which then passed.

Karl Brooks of the ICL said no such effort was made on the public trust bill, which was pushed by the timber industry and the water group.

“They instead relied on fear-mongering and the lowest form of scare tactics,” Brooks said. He called the bill “the most odious piece of anti-environment legislation this year.”

Batt said he agreed with conservationists’ claims that the bill was rushed through in the final two weeks of the session with little public input. “I joined in that criticism of the process,” he said.

But Batt said he can’t tell the Legislature how to run its process, and his only concern was whether the measure was good legislation.

“A farm which has no irrigation water is worthless, an irrigated farm,” Batt said.”I think they have a legitimate concern.”

Other legislation of concern to the conservationists included:

A measure encouraging the state to move toward joint management of federal forest lands. Supporters said they hoped it would open the door for more timber-cutting on national forests, and opponents said it would threaten other forest goals like wildlife and water quality. The measure, which has little effect unless Congress takes similar action, passed and was signed into law.

A timber industry bill changing an obscure 1927 law that designated the shores of lakes Pend Oreille, Coeur d’Alene and Payette for public recreation. Hinson wrote the bill to eliminate an argument an environmental group raised in a court challenge of a timber sale. The bill passed and was signed into law.

A bill reducing quarterly reports to the state now required from hazardous polluters to once a year. That bill also was signed into law.

The “Environmental Audits” legislation that passed last year, which allows polluters to file secret reports on their own pollution and be immune from prosecution for violations of state environmental laws if they clean up the contamination. This year, the Legislature amended the law to keep Idaho National Engineering Laboratory contractors from using it to cover up spills.

Brooks said the same problem lawmakers saw with INEL contractors exists for all industries, and the law should be repealed.

“There’s not good two-party competition, so a lot of bad ideas never get smoked out like they should,” said Brooks, a former Democratic state senator. The Legislature is 80 percent Republican.

Brooks added, “The percentage of legislators who owed their election to private economic interests was very high. More often than not, they get what they paid for.”

Batt called that “certainly an unfair criticism.”

, DataTimes