Vetoes still needed for anti-environment bills

There's still time to do what's right:

Gov. Beverly Perdue's office has received more than 3,400 letters and emails urging her to veto three environment-related bills passed by the General Assembly in its recent legislative session, said Chris Mackey, a governor's spokeswoman. Among the three bills decried in the messages is House Bill 819, the sea-level rise bill.

A bill that has contributed greatly to North Carolina's status as a national laughingstock. The other two bills seem to be flying under the (mainstream media) radar:

The other two bills drawing opposition from environmental groups – Senate Bill 229 and House Bill 953 – tweak a number of environmental regulations around the state.

Here's the text for SB229, including this (indefinite?) postponement of the implementation of the Jordan Lake Rules:

part IX. provide flexibility for the development of basinwide water quality management plans that have waters designated as nutrient sensitive and delay the implementation deadline for local stormwater management programs under the jordan lake new development rule

SECTION 9.(a) G.S. 143‑215.1(c6) reads as rewritten:

"(c6) For surface waters that the Commission classifies as nutrient sensitive waters (NSW) on or after 1 July 1997, the Commission shall establish a date by which facilities that were placed into operation prior to the date on which the surface waters are classified NSW or for which an authorization to construct was issued prior to the date on which the surface waters are classified NSW must comply with subsections (c1) and (c2) of this section. The Commission shall establish the compliance date schedule at the time of the classification. The Commission shall not establish a compliance date that is more than five years after the date of the classification. The Commission may extend the compliance date as provided in G.S. 143‑215.1B. A request to extend a compliance date shall be submitted within 120 days of the date on which the Commission reclassifies a surface water body as NSW."

I would go as far as to describe this bill as an "omnibus", dealing with several issues that should be dealt with separately. For that reason alone, this should receive a Veto. For the cumulative dangers it represents, it shouldn't have even made it to the Governor's desk.

Comments