Action needed by Ohio DUers to stop giveaway of L. Erie shore--Vote Wed!

[Kolesar]

What I am saying is that there will be a vote in the house tomorrow. Call your reps early!

Activist info and phone numbers here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=3722
edit: We will likely have to fight this January in the Ohio Senate.

Testimony

36 West Gay Street Suite 314, Columbus OH 43215

TEL: <614> 461-0734 FAX: <614> 461-0730 www.ohio.sierraclub.org


Testimony of David Scott
on behalf of the Sierra Club – Ohio Chapter
before the Ohio House Energy and Environment Committee
House Bill 218 – Lake Erie Coastal Management
December 9, 2003

With over 18,000 dues-paying members, the Ohio Chapter of the Sierra Club is Ohio’s largest environmental advocacy organization. We believe that, as written, Substitute House Bill 218 will jeopardize the state’s ability to protect Lake Erie’s shore. Changing the shore boundary from the high-water mark is unnecessary and unwise. That provision and other provisions will create uncertainty, encourage lawsuits, and hamper the state’s ability to prevent shoreline erosion. We urge the legislature to scrap most of this bill – especially the shoreline change – and to narrowly focus on property owner grievances against ODNR as a management and policy issue, not a call to change the map of the lakeshore.

Protection of Lake Erie’s coast is a legitimate and necessary state function. Ohioans have paid a steep price for past failures to fulfill that role. The Ohio Lake Erie Commission’s 1998 State of the Lake Report warned that “many stretches of shoreline, rivermouths and streams can no longer support healthy, biologically diverse communities of fish, invertebrates or plant life” (30). The commission graded the biological health of the shoreline in the lake’s western basin as “poor”. Wetlands that once provided flood control, erosion protection and ground water recharge have all but disappeared (34).

Intensive, poorly-planned development has not only drastically affected near-shore fish and wildlife, it has adversely affected people as well. Lakefront property owners fight the effects of erosion caused by the inappropriate actions of less responsible neighbors down the coast.

Any documented problems between ODNR and lakefront property owners should be fairly and thoroughly investigated, and then appropriately addressed. The state should correct management problems and revise policies as necessary. But changing ODNR practices doesn’t require redrawing the legal boundary of a Great Lake, and the provision changing that boundary must be deleted from the bill.

Changing the legal boundary of Lake Erie risks the following consequences:

· The change will hamper ODNR’s ability to slow or arrest lakefront erosion – by definition, it’s easier to oversee public land than private land

· The change will cause uncertainty about public access to the lake. The State of the Lake report notes that even now, only 3 % of Ohio's 262 miles of lakefront is public beach. Lake Erie's shore has enough "Keep Out" signs as it is -- we don't need to privatize thousands of acres of public trust shore lands.

· The change will foster unnecessary litigation. By redefining public trust property as private property, this bill invites "regulatory takings" lawsuits that will cost large sums of money and foster uncertainty about property rights and oversight.

In addition to the shoreline change, other portions of the bill also invite unnecessary litigation. Both the federal and state constitutions require just compensation for government takings of private property, but decades of established case law have balanced private property rights against the government's duty to protect the public. Private property owners already have the Fifth Amendment's protection against takings. I question the wisdom of this bill's superfluous statutory language about compensation – do we really need to insert statutory banners that say "Please sue the taxpayers?"

The appeal process set forth in the bill also risks undesirable consequences. By giving exclusive jurisdiction to local courts along the lake, the bill sidesteps the state court with the most administrative expertise in favor of local courts that are less insulated from local political pressures. As outlined in the bill, the appeal process also creates the risk of inconsistent rulings in different county courts.



The proposed permitting process has other major flaws. The bill fails to give ODNR explicit authority to evaluate permit applications on the basis of how modifications could affect environmental quality. The bill's notice provision fails to protect the public: when a landowner applies for a permit, the bill only requires ODNR to give notice to adjoining landowners, not the public at large (p. 40).

Even more disturbingly, the bill appears to limit the criteria for granting commercial leases to consideration of potential impacts upon "the public right of navigation, water commerce and fishery" (p. 24). Again, the language omits any reference to environmental impacts. Ill-advised choices in this bill may hurt ODNR's ability to do its job, and I urge state officials to carefully reconsider the language regarding permits and leases.

Substitute H.B. 218 creates a drastic, overreaching solution to what is, if anything, a departmental policy and management issue. We urge legislators to drop the change in the lake boundary and redraft this bill in a way that is narrowly tailored to address specific, documented problems. Instead of enacting a hasty legislative fix, the General Assembly should appoint a study committee to review coastal program management. Otherwise, in its rush to placate a few angry citizens, the state may cripple its ability to protect the public, the lake, and even lakefront landowners, who have the most to gain from effective erosion control.


Slow down and do this right.

[liberalnurse]

1. I got your backdoor....

Count me in on this one too!

[Kolesar]

2. It is an energy & environment committee vote today, not the whole house

Here is a distilled message:

Please read the following message from the Sierra Club about an important environmental issue and take action by clicking the link below. I also urge you to call your Representative today if he/she is on the House Energy and Environment committee, as that committee is scheduled to vote on Sub HB 218 today. To find your Representative and see if he/she is on the committee, please visit http://www.house.state.oh.us/jsps/Representatives.jsp.

Problem:

The Ohio House is poised to vote as early as Wednesday on a bill that would dramatically reshape public access to the Lake Erie shore. Sub HB 218 would turn over Lake Erie shoreline to private property owners - even though the land has been held for the public since Ohio became a state. Sub HB 218 creates a drastic, overreaching solution to what is, if anything, a departmental policy and management issue.

Solution:

The Ohio House should slow down and deal with the real problems of coastal management. They should provide adequate funding for coastal management,
require a review of ODNR leasing and permitting procedures, and retain all publicly held shoreline property for all of Ohio's residents.

Action Needed:

I urge you to contact your Representative today and ask him/her to vote NO! on Sub HB 218.

Deadline for responding:

Please take today.