State Senator Lisa Brown has long been a favorite of Spokane progressives because she’s smart, reasonable, and has a solid reputation as an advocate for the public interest. To which we should add that, as the leader of the Senate’s Majority Leader, she’s also the most influential voice that Spokane has had in Olympia in many years. Not that it should matter very much but it’s also true that before the Saranac Building opened, Senator Brown’s district office was literally just down the hall from our offices in the Community Building.
In any event, it surprised many of us when Sen. Brown emerged both in press accounts and in private conversations with insiders as the leading facilitator of SB 6036, a hastily composed measure that sailed through the senate earlier this month. The bill is controversial both because it would double the length of cleanup timelines for polluted state waterways, including the Spokane River, and because it seems to usurp rules and procedures over which the federal Environmental Protection Agency has always had the last word about. For the record, the Center opposes the legislation and our lead water lawyer, Rick Eichstaedt, testified against it. Spokane County democrats also opposed it and mounted a call-in effort to block it, but to no avail.
Frankly, we’re baffled about how all this happened, and it seemed reasonable given that we know of no public statements by Senator Brown about why the bill was needed, and why she supported it, to ask her about it. Indeed, notwithstanding the press accounts, she’s yet to actually confirm that she supported the bill (she was absent for the vote on it in the senate).
So we decided to ask her some questions, in writing, and sent the following email to her last Thursday. No reply yet, but if and when we receive one, we’ll share it here or in our news section.
May 19th email from Center for Justice:
Lisa,
I am writing an article for our supporters and followers about the passage of SB 6036 which, among other things, seeks to greatly lengthen water pollution cleanup timelines for the Spokane River. It has been reported that even though you didn’t sponsor this bill, that your office was the catalyst for moving it forward in the Senate. For example, this is how Kevin Taylor reported on it, in last week’s Inlander. I’ve underlined the part that talks about your role.
Rushing Waters
A bill that allows polluters double the time to reduce nutrients in the Spokane River and other state waters is being driven by Inland Empire Paper, state Department of Ecology Director Jay Manning acknowledged last week.
“Ecology does not view it as their bill. [But] they support it,” says Rick Eichstaedt, a river attorney with the Center for Justice.
Inland Empire Paper officials have told The Inlander they fear it may be impossible to meet the Clean Water Act’s phosphorous standard of 8 parts per billion and don’t feel Ecology’s current allowance of up to 10 extra years provides enough wiggle room.
Environmental groups are puzzled about how an Inland Empire “conversation” about doubling compliance schedules became a bill just before committee cutoff in the Legislature, then shot out of Sen. Lisa Brown’s office even though she is not a sponsor (and despite opposition from Spokane County Democrats) and passed 48-0 last week with Brown absent. If the bill passes the House Friday, it goes straight to Gov. Gregoire.
“We don’t understand why there is such a rush,” says Bruce Wishart, policy director for People For Puget Sound, noting that the EPA must OK water quality changes anyway.
— KEVIN TAYLOR
Obviously, a lot of us are perplexed about your purported role in this and I would like to at least give you an opportunity to respond to the following questions.
1) Is the Inlander account accurate in terms of what it reports about your support for and facilitation of SB 6036?
2) Did you or your office write the bill? If not, can you tell me who did?
3) Did Inland Empire Paper or other Spokane River dischargers approach you to support the bill?
4) Did you consult with Sierra Club about the bill?
5) You were counted “absent” on the bill, so can you clarify whether you would have supported, or opposed the bill if you’d been present?
6) Finally, if you did support the bill, can you explain why you thought it was necessary?
Thanks for your attention to this.
Regards, Tim Connor, Communications Director, Center for Justice
No comments yet.