2001 - 2002 Interim
Ohio Environmental Scorecard

Ohio House Vote Descriptions

Clean Air and Water

1. Clean Water - HB 292
Development throughout Ohio can be blamed for a share of the flooding problems experienced by citizens over the last decade. House Bill 292 permits counties to include in their building codes regulations to protect existing surface and subsurface drainage and requires a public involvement process if such regulations are adopted. The bill passed by a vote of 96-0. "Yes" is the correct vote.

2. Wetlands Protections - HB 231
This bill weakens protections for isolated or non-jurisdictional wetlands. In 2001, the US Supreme Court struck down federal protections for isolated wetlands leaving protection of these precious areas to state government. The Ohio EPA issued emergency rules that largely mirrored the federal protections. However, the General Assembly then introduced and passed House Bill 231 which makes it easier to destroy isolated wetlands. The bill was later signed by Governor Taft. Wetlands provide important functions including flood control, filtration of water pollution, and critical habitat for birds and wildlife. The bill passed the House by a vote of 94-0. "No" is the correct vote.

3. Prohibit sale of MTBE - HB 425
MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) is widely used as a gasoline additive. It is used to enhance engine performance, improve combustion efficiency, and to re-duce emissions of air pollutants. MTBE also is a water pollutant. It is water-soluble and has been detected in groundwater in thousands of communities. MTBE in even minute amounts causes the water to taste and smell offensive. The health effects of direct exposure to MTBE are not well known, although initial laboratory tests indicate it is a carcinogen. House Bill 425 prohibits the sale of MTBE in Ohio. The bill passed the House by a vote of 95-0. "Yes" is the correct vote.

4. Federal Clean Air Legislation - SCR 28
No other single source of industrial pollution causes as many adverse public health and environmental impacts as old, dirty coal-fired power plants. Pollution from these dirty plants cuts short the lives of more than 30,000 Americans each year and in some in-stances may shave several years off a person's life ac-cording to recent studies. Federal legislation has been introduced to address the environmental and public health effects associated with dirty power plants.

• Smog and soot-forming nitrogen oxides would be cut by 75 percent from 1997 levels
• Acid rain and soot-forming sulfur dioxide would be cut by 75% below Phase II of the Acid Rain Program
• Toxic mercury emissions would be cut by 90 percent from 1999 levels
• Global warming carbon dioxide emissions would return to levels present in 1990.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 28 calls on Congress to reject this clean air legislation. The resolution passed the House by a vote of 86-5. "No" is the correct vote.

Environmental Enforcement

5. Cost Recovery from Polluters - Amendment to HB 3
House Bill 3 was the vehicle to implement the Clean Ohio Fund, a bond act approved by voters in 2000. Part of the bill included up to $200 million to clean up brownfields, or abandoned and polluted industrial sites. This amendment to House Bill 3 would have strengthened the provisions regarding cost recovery from parties responsible for pollution of brown-fields-thus making sure that those responsible for the pollution reimbursed the state for the cleanup of the pollution. The amendment was tabled by a vote of 59-40. "No" is the correct vote.

6. Polluter Protection - SB 105
Senate Bill 105 allows polluters to avoid penalties if the Ohio EPA or another government agency fails to take action within five years of the violation. While the bill still requires polluters to pay for the clean-up, it removes a major deterrent for violating environ-mental laws. The bill affects both state and local government. The bill passed the House by a vote of 82-15. "No" is the correct vote.

7. Polluter Protection - Amendment to SB 105
One major issue of Senate Bill 105 is the point at which the five-year time period begins. The language in bill is vague and likely to lead to litigation. This amendment to Senate Bill 105 would have tightened the language regarding the starting point for tolling time in the statute of limitations. The amendment was tabled by a vote of 58-39. "No" is the correct vote.

Report all problems with this web site to the webmaster.

Sierra Club® and One Earth, One Chance® are registered trademarks of the Sierra Club. © 2001 Sierra Club. Sierra Club Website Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.