ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, February 27, 1996 TAG: 9602270112
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-3 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: RICHMOND
SOURCE: CATHRYN McCUE STAFF WRITER
Environmentalists moved closer Monday to their long-sought goal of giving the public the right to challenge air and water pollution permits issued to industries and municipalities.
On a 10-5 vote, a Senate committee passed a bill that would broaden Virginia's "citizen standing" law, which defines who can sue the state over environmental permits.
"It's so exciting," said Patti Jackson, director of the James River Association. "It's never gotten out of committee before."
Environmentalists gained two key votes from Democrats who had objected to broadening the standing requirements, including Sen. Jack Reasor of Bluefield. His district includes Bland County, where residents and local officials have fought a proposed medical-waste incinerator for several years.
"We did everything by the book, but it didn't seem like anyone listened or cared," said Harlan Cox, a farmer and mechanic who left home at 2:30 a.m. to appear before the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources.
The Air Pollution Control Board issued a permit for the burner last year. Under Virginia's existing law, the county has little chance of challenging the permit.
The business community, backed by the Allen administration, says relaxing the standards would result in a flurry of lawsuits that would slow the permitting process, cost money and discourage economic development.
"Environmental litigation rarely produces good environmental policy," said John Paul Woodley, with the attorney general's office.
Environmentalists say Virginia has the toughest standard in the country. Only the person seeking a water pollution permit can sue the state. The law governing air pollution permits is broader, allowing anyone who has participated in the public hearing process and can show an immediate, substantial and financial interest to sue the state.
Under the bill, introduced by Del. Tayloe Murphy, D-Richmond County, the standard basically would mirror the looser requirements under federal law.
Several committee members questioned whether the bill would allow people in one part of the state to simply send a letter opposing a permit, and later be granted standing.
"It's not going to open the courts to everyone, by any means," Murphy told them.
Ted Minor, an attorney for the Union Camp paper mill in Franklin, spoke in favor of the bill, partly because the federal Environmental Protection Agency is considering taking over Virginia's water pollution program because of the standing issue.
Outside the meeting, Minor said his company has "never had any problems" with lawsuits over permits for its facilities in South Carolina, which has much broader standing rules.
Several legislators were concerned that the bill would interfere with a pending lawsuit filed by the Allen administration against the EPA, which has threatened sanctions unless Virginia changes its standing for air pollution permits.
Murphy said he worked with the attorney general's office over the weekend to add language that says the bill wouldn't become effective unless the court in that case rules in favor of the EPA.
In other action, the committee carried over to next year a bill that would outlaw all shooting preserves, such as the Boar Walla preserve in Alleghany County, within five years. The issue drew several speakers, including the co-owner of Boar Walla, Betty Hawkins. She said she would lose up to $500,000 if the General Assembly forced her out of business.
Supporters of the bill said that "canned hunts" of exotic rams, boars and other mammals not only threaten native wildlife and livestock with disease, but are also morally wrong.
The committee decided to wait one more year until the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services writes regulations for the three existing preserves in the state.
On another matter, about two dozen opponents of a measure to eventually ban the ownership and breeding of wolf hybrids packed the committee meeting room, almost twice as many as supporters of the bill.
While several senators appeared sympathetic to supporters, they were concerned the bill was confusing and unenforceable. On a voice vote, the committee sent the matter to a subcommittee for further work.
LENGTH: Medium: 83 lines KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1996by CNB