|
Kansas Issues |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statement to the Kansas
House Committee on Energy and Utilities
February 6, 2008 Chairman Holmes and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is James Mason. I live in Wichita. I am Secretary of the Board of the Kansas Natural Resource Council, which since 1981 has been an advocate for clean water, progressive energy policy, protection of our environment, livable communities and sustainable economic development. The bill we are discussing today would set an energy policy for the state of Kansas that points us in the wrong direction. It is the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community worldwide that human-induced changes to the global climate are having an immediate, negative impact. The science is clear. If you add up all the fossil carbon - coal, oil and natural gas - that has been burned since the start of the Industrial Age, and adjust that figure by what has been removed by natural processes such as photosynthesis and absorption by the oceans, you get a match for the increase in CO2 we see in our atmosphere today. We know the physical properties of how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere. It reflects heat back to the earth, causing atmospheric temperature to go up. If we continue burning fossil fuels at a rate in excess of the ability of natural systems to take CO2 back out of the air, the increase in global temperature will have drastic and very harmful effects. Low lying coastal areas where hundreds of millions of people live are at risk of inundation from rising sea levels, which would cause tremendous hardship as these people attempt to relocate elsewhere. This is not just a third world problem. Many of the most populous cities in the United States are also on the coast. Here in Kansas the most direct effect will be to agriculture. We are about evenly split between USDA zones 5 and 6. If global climate change is not arrested and reversed, the climate zones in North America are predicted to shift northwards bringing us the climate of the Texas panhandle and ending our long reputation as the "wheat state". Dozens of states in our nation recognize the necessity to address this issue and are implementing policy changes to reduce their carbon emissions. Nations all over the world are grappling with this problem as well. It is an enormous problem, but therein lays enormous opportunities - especially for our state. The transition to a post-carbon world is the great challenge of this century. Coal, oil and natural gas are all running out. We depend utterly on these resources, yet every day there is less to use, and every day it gets more expensive. Whoever can provide the renewable, non-polluting energy we need to move beyond a fossil fuel-based economy, or the goods and services required to tap that energy, will not only be doing a great service to humanity and the Earth but will also thrive economically. Kansas has the potential to provide both renewable power AND those goods and services. We should seize this opportunity for the good of the planet as well as for our own self-interest. Building 1,400 MW of new coal-fired electric generating capacity is a big step in the wrong direction. Another way to meet the challenge of reducing our carbon emissions while maintaining our standard of living is through energy efficiency improvements in our homes and businesses. This is the low-hanging fruit that we have only begun to harvest. There are features in the bill being debated that would improve efficiency of state buildings and operations, but for some reason the bill totally ignores the hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses across this state that could benefit from conservation retrofits. To that end, it is essential to develop an energy policy that enables utilities to aggressively implement demand management. Adequate financial tools are also necessary to assist ratepayers who cannot afford to make these investments on their own. If we get serious about energy conservation we can increase economic security for all Kansans and provide Main Street benefits for hardware stores, lumberyards and skilled craftsmen statewide. At the same time it will reduce our demand for energy, reduce our carbon footprint and also defer the need for new power plants. Yes, we can grow the economy by using less energy! Adding insulation to walls and ceilings, replacing leaky, ill-fitting doors and windows with modern ones, replacing old clunker AC units with modern ultra-efficient ones - even something as simple as planting a shade tree on the west side of your house - all can knock down the demand for energy without reducing our quality of life in the least. In fact, these investments will actually improve our quality of life by making our homes and businesses more livable and holding down our monthly utility bills. Every study shows that making these investments is the cheapest and quickest way to meet short-term needs. In the case of both renewable energy production and smart energy use, the economic benefits of implementing these choices will be felt all across the state. Western Kansas should rejoice, because they have an immense wind power resource which, if developed, will have economic benefits far beyond that of the proposed expansion of the Holcomb facility and which will not use a single drop of precious water from the aquifer. The people of Kansas deserve a better energy policy than would result from this bill – a policy that seizes the opportunities presented by a post-carbon economy and enables smart use of the energy we consume. The people of Kansas deserve to have such a serious matter as state energy policy given full, thoughtful consideration by our legislature, not have it shoved out the door in haste. The people of Kansas have said in a recent poll that they approve of the decision to deny the Holcomb air permit by a margin of 2 to 1 and by a margin of 3 to 1 want to see our vast wind resource developed. The Kansas Natural Resource Council asks you, our legislators, to do the right thing and respect the will of the people. Please work with Governor Sebelius to put a progressive energy policy in place of this bill.
December 10, 2006 James Mason,
The KNRC has long sought to improve the quality of the surface waters of Kansas through public education on the one hand and lighting a fire under the regulators on the other in order to realize effective enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Nationwide, many other organizations have been active along these lines also. Recently, the National Wildlife Federation has begun a campaign focusing on restoration and protection of wetlands nationwide. These ecosystems are vital to preservation of water quality and overall watershed health. KNRC has signed on to this effort and encourages all interested groups and individuals to join us. You may do so online at the web page listed below. CONSERVATION BLUEPRINT FOR AMERICA'S WETLANDS As citizens committed to maintaining and restoring a diversity and abundance of wetlands for future generations of people and wildlife, we urge our elected officials to work to:
Ten Essential Steps for the Future of America's Wetlands 1. Ensure that avoidance of wetland impacts, where possible, is the guiding principle for wetland protection. It is extremely difficult and expensive to restore wetlands and they usually cannot be restored to their full functionality and diversity once they have been drained or filled. Scientists estimate that as many as 80 percent of wetland replacement projects to date have failed to become fully functional. Some types of wetlands cannot be recreated under any known technologies and others take many decades to fully develop. It makes the most sense to avoid destroying wetlands where other options are available. 2. Pass legislation to ensure that all wetlands, lakes, rivers and streams are protected under the federal Clean Water Act. The 2001 U.S. Supreme Court's "SWANCC" decision held that Clean Water Act protections do not extend to certain non-navigable, intrastate, "isolated" waters bodies based solely on their use by migratory birds. Although this narrow decision should only apply to a small percentage of water-bodies, it has been used to justify a rollback of protections for over 20 percent of the nation's wetlands. Legislation is needed to reaffirm Congress' intent to apply Clean Water Act protections to all wetlands and other waters of the United States. 3. Ensure full funding and eventual expansion of incentive programs that encourage farmers and other private landowners to restore wetlands on their property. Voluntary, incentive based programs that help farmers and other landowners to restore wetlands on their properties have been enormously popular. Programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program enable farmers to take unproductive land out of production and put it back into wetlands that can provide floodwater control, water quality improvements and wildlife habitat. Landowner interest in these programs is consistently many times greater than funding available. 4. Ensure natural wetlands are protected from pollution, such as unregulated stormwater discharges, mercury contamination, and other sources of pollution. While net losses of wetlands have slowed in the United States, those that remain are becoming increasingly degraded. Uncontrolled stormwater runoff, containing high concentrations of nutrients, sediments and other contaminants are choking natural wetlands and impairing their functions. Deposition of mercury from air pollution is leading to accumulations of this dangerous toxic in the flesh of fish and wildlife species and the humans that consume them. 5. End federal subsidies that promote the largescale destruction or degradation of wetlands. A variety of federal programs subsidize the destruction or degradation of wetlands. Currently proposed Army Corps of Engineers civil works projects threaten more than 640,000 acres of wetlands, including 200,000 acres from the Yazoo Pump project in Mississippi alone. Crop insurance programs run by USDA are not linked to wetland protection provisions that apply to other agriculture subsidies, leading to the drainage of thousands of acres wetlands that would not be sufficiently productive to justify draining if not for insurance programs that eliminate risk. 6. Support the establishment and implementation of a national wetlands restoration plan to ensure a diversity and abundance of wetlands across the country. While there are currently dozens of federal programs that promote wetland restoration, there has been no attempt to coordinate these programs to ensure that all types of wetlands in all regions of the country are being restored. A national wetland restoration plan would allow the better targeting targeting of restoration efforts to avoid unnecessary duplication and to identify restoration needs that are not currently being addressed. 7. Launch a new "Marshall Plan" for the restoration of large scale ecosystems like coastal Louisiana, Upper Mississippi River, the Great Lakes, Puget Sound, Chesapeake Bay and the Everglades. North America's freshwater ecosystems are among the most imperiled in the world. Yet the current approach of providing piecemeal, minor funding for restoration of these systems dooms any chances at long term success. With public demand increasing for protecting and restoring these valuable systems, it is time to begin a comprehensive planning process for large scale aquatic ecosystem restoration efforts and to dedicate sufficient funding to enable their success. 8. Prevent rising sea levels from inundating coastal wetlands by working to address global climate change. Rapidly rising sea levels due to global warming pose a serious threat to coastal wetlands, particularly when combined with soil subsidence and ill-planned coastal development. From the mid-Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico, sea level rise over the past few decades has already contributed to coastal wetland losses as high as 25 square miles per year. Scientists project that, if global climate change continues, the rate of sealevel rise will accelerate during the next century, eliminating important habitat for wildlife and displacing many coastal communities. 9. Create a comprehensive new national wetlands monitoring and tracking program and establish concrete goals for all federal departments to contribute to the net gain of wetlands. Current federal wetlands tracking programs are useful in identifying national trends of wetland loss by area, but new mechanisms need to be developed to accurately track the status of wetland functions, values and acreage. Such a tracking program can be used to chart progress towards a national net gain goal for wetlands. Each federal department should be given and evaluated on concrete annual goals for their assigned contribution to achieving this goal. 10. Ensure public transparency and participation in all aspects of wetland incentive, tracking and regulatory programs. The public has a substantial interest in ensuring the maintenance and restoration of a diversity and abundance of wetlands. From waterfowl hunters concerned about waterfowl habitats, communities concerned about future flooding or water treatment costs, to conservationists who want to ensure that we preserve biodiversity for future generations, the public has ample standing to participate in decision making regarding the protection, restoration and tracking of our nation's wetlands. You may add your support to this campaign here: http://action.nwf.org/campaign/wetlandspetition20050405?source=action_index
(The following testimony was given before the Kansas House Environment Committee on February 10, 2004.)
The latter point is of great concern to KNRC beyond the damage this bill would do to existing and future recreational trails in Kansas. It is frankly difficult for nonprofits, in these days of the many pressures on time and resources that we all live with, to attract and enlist the private citizens to do the work required to maintain an organization and pursue an active mission, regardless of the nature of that mission. Current statutes recognize that and encourage that involvement by reasonably limiting the personal liability exposure for doing so. This bill would erode that protection and that erosion would have an adverse impact on the entire concept of citizen involvement in nonprofit organizations. A final observation, Madam Chair, an apparent irony of circumstances. This session of the legislature is also considering two measures that would amend the same section of Kansas statutes as this bill. House Bill 2591 and Senate Bill 334 would both limit the liability of property owners involved in eco- and agri-tourism. Similar bills enjoyed overwhelming support in the last session and KNRC endorsed them then and has done so again. The deliberate harshness of the penalties that would be made possible by HB 2583 put this bill at odds with the purposes of those widely supported proposals. Because it is a threat to the state’s outdoor recreation capacity, and because it is a significant erosion of the protections from personal liability that every citizen has a right to expect in their support of nonprofit organizations, Kansas Natural Resource Council urges your vote against HB 2583. Jay Barnes, Executive Director
(The following letter was sent to the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, and Ranking Minority Member of the Kansas House Environment Committee on February 5, 2004.)
(The following letter was sent to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hearing officer for the Kansas City district on August 25, 2003.)
|
