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.

H.B70 A Bigger Deal Than Most Thought: By Guadalupe Rivera

The air quality in Utah is without a doubt the worst in the winter, which affects our daily lives more than we know. The poor air quality will negatively affect our health in the long term. People with asthma suffer from the effects of polluted air faster than others, since whenever the pollution in the air is high they have a hard time breathing.

Salt Lake City’s particle pollution in a 24 hour period is an average of 22 parts per million. This number is just two less than Los Angeles, California which has a particle pollution of 24 ppm.

The bill H.B.70 would create a task force to look at with Utah’s poor air quality. It is much like the already existing one that deals with water issues. The bill would create a 13 member committee, which would be made up of five Utah senators and eight representatives. The members of the task force will be appointed by the speaker and the majority president, and would review laws so that they can suggest changes that need to be made to improve the air quality in Utah.

The bill will be having its 3^rd reading in the House of Representatives sometime next week, where the representatives are to vote whether to pass it on to the Senate. The task force will suggest changes or improvements that need to be done on existing laws to help clean our air. This does not mean that the laws will be changed by the task force, but that they will be giving suggestions and opinions and then the House will decide whether or not to apply the changes. Representative Patrice Arent, the main sponsor for this bill, is unsure of what laws will be changed or fixed.

“It is premature to determine what the outcome of the study might be,” Arent said.

The bill has many supporters, including Questar, Utah Moms for Clean Air, Breathe Utah, Wasatch Clean Air Coalition, and Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, Overstock.com, and the Utah Medical Association.

Besides these, there are also the citizens who wish to be able to breath clean air.

The big question is: what can be done about the poor air quality? Some people think that it is out of our hands, but others think that we can all help a little bit at a time.

Sol Maria Diaz-Vera, a sophomore at West High School, was asked what could be done to help clean our air, and she answered “Maybe if each person told themselves, ‘today I’m going to reduce pollution,' it’d be better.”

I completely agree with her. If we all help a little then there will be a huge difference.

Another major question on this matter is whether or not this is a moral or political issue. For some it may seem like it’s more of a moral issue, since it’s depending on whether or not we care about the planet that all of us live on, but for others it is a political matter. Tony Yapias is a Utah activist and a columnist at the weekly newspaper El Estandar. He sees this issue as being both a political and a moral matter: “I think it’s a moral issue, first because we have to be good stewards of this land so that your kids and the future generations can enjoy the land. Everything is political because that is the only way to protect it.”

Governor Gary R. Herbert recently said that he had a plan to get Utah’s air clean up called U-CAIR. The plan would consist of running campaigns to get the citizens of Utah involved in cleaning the air. This plan will not make it a requirement to help improve the air quality. In my opinion if it's not mandatory then people will not participate. There needs to be a better solution if our air quality is to improve.

Protecting our environment is a big deal, whether it’s our water, land, or air. We all need to start doing something to clean our air and not just leave it to the people with power. It will be best if the task force does strengthen some existing laws since it’s in all of our interest to have clean air, at whatever the cost.