Thinking about the environment in all the wrong ways

by Logan Froerer

Senate Bill 21, sponsored by Margaret Dayton (R-Orem) would rearrange the state’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). While its proposals would not be a huge change from the present set up, the bill is grounded on an attitude that is dangerously disconnected from what should be the department’s core purpose: creating a healthy environment for Utah citizens.

There are currently five boards overseeing air quality, water quality, drinking water, radioactive materials, and solid and hazardous waste. Almost all members of the board come from what an explanatory handout provided by Dayton’s intern Max Britton terms “stakeholder groups.” That Orwellian term should be read as “industry and business interests.”

SB 21 would “change the board membership from 11 to 9 members, and make membership more uniform” in the search for “certain expertise” said Donna Kemp Spangler, the public information officer for the DEQ. One of the nine seats on each board would be reserved for a representative from nongovernmental organizations, the avenue by which an environmentalist voice could join the group.

The rationale, for Senator Dayton, is to make the board more efficient. A companion bill, SB 11, would move adjudicative proceedings, those dealing with appeals on regulations, out of the hands of the board and under the control of the executive office at the DEQ.

According to Spangler, that move, in theory, is a beneficial move for the DEQ, as it would free the boards to center their focus back on environmental protections rather than appeals and judicial proceedings.

Still, she expressed an uncertainty about how those changes would be implemented.

“The bill right now does not properly set up the transfer of power,” she said. “It just creates a massive undertaking for [the DEQ] to try and separate all the inconsistencies that this would create.”

Those inconsistencies alone should be sending up rallying an opposition who still cares about the world we live in. But even if the language were clarified and those issues cleaned up, the underlying attitude would still blindly miss the real environmental issues.

The regulation and management of our environment is not something that should be thought of in terms of “efficiency” or “cost effectiveness.” Moreover, it should not be governed solely by those linked in with the industries that cause the majority of our environmental problems.

Efficiency and cost must be considered, but they should not be the foundation of how our legislature discusses environmental regulations. Unfortunately, that is the case.

Meaningful legislation on behalf of our environment will require a more accurate definition of who the “stakeholder groups” in our community are.

Any Utah resident can tell the difference between a red air day, when just breathing can mean a fiery scratching in your throat and our homes are blanketed by a heavy grey inversion.

Salt Lake citizens know how much more inspiring life can feel when Mt. Olympus and the Twin Peaks break out crisp and clear in the morning, rather than shrouded by pollution.

The real “stakeholder groups” that our legislation should be addressing are the kids in Magna drinking water affected by Rio Tinto’s operations, or families in the Cache and Salt Lake Valleys using inhalers to suffer through another polluted red air day.

If SB 21 continues to roll through the Legislature, it’s an incredibly sad reflection on what stakeholders our representatives and senators choose to value.